The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd v. State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Government Revenue Dept
Affirmation of the Inherent Jurisdiction of the GST Appellate Tribunal to Grant Interim Stay Orders and Interlocutory Relief.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:5320-DB
Decision Date: 20-02-2026
List of Laws
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Doctrine of Inherent and Incidental Powers
- Facts: The petitioner, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd, was aggrieved by a tax liability confirmed via an Order-in-Original, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority on 12th June 2024. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on 5th February 2026. Despite informing the authorities that the tax demand was deposited and adjusted, a Recovery Notice was issued on 6th February 2026. The petitioner approached the High Court contending that the GST Tribunal lacks the statutory power to grant interim stay orders against recovery proceedings, as there is no express provision in the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), to that effect.
- Procedural Posture: The case reached the Bombay High Court by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the recovery notices and obtain a stay on coercive actions during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal.
- Issue: Whether the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, as constituted under the CGST Act, 2017, possesses the jurisdiction and power to pass interim orders, specifically to stay recovery proceedings during the pendency of an appeal.
- Holding: Yes, the GST Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to pass interim orders.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that although the CGST Act does not contain an express provision for granting a stay, such power is inherent and incidental to the appellate jurisdiction conferred under Section 113. Relying on the Supreme Court's precedent in "Income Tax Officer vs. M. K. Mohammed Kunhi", the Court held that a substantive right of appeal would be rendered illusory if the Tribunal were powerless to prevent the enforcement of an order that it has the authority to set aside. Furthermore, the Court noted that the "Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025" explicitly recognize "Inherent powers" (Rule 10) and provide for "Interlocutory applications" for stay (Rule 29). The High Court emphasized that an express grant of statutory power carries an implied authority to use all reasonable means to make that grant effective. Therefore, the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy to move the Tribunal for interim relief.
🔒 For Members Only