I. P. Roadlines India Ltd. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The matter concerned a challenge to the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No.1142 of 2024. The High Court had earlier entertained the writ petition because the GST Appellate Tribunal contemplated under Section 112 of the GST Act had not been constituted for appeals against orders under Sections 107 or 108.
The High Court subsequently noted that the Central Government had constituted the GST Appellate Tribunal by order dated 24.09.2025 and that its Members had been appointed through Office Order No. 03/2025 dated 26.12.2025, with a request to join their respective Benches by 21.01.2026. The High Court also recorded that rules regulating the procedure and functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal had been notified by the Central Government under Section 111 of the GST Act on 24.04.2025.
Considering the constitution and commencement of functioning of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the High Court held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. Without entering into the validity or legality of the impugned orders, it disposed of the writ petition and permitted the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 and the notification dated 17.09.2025 up to 30.06.2026. It directed that an appeal filed within that period would be entertained without an objection regarding limitation. It further prescribed periods for intimating and curing defects and directed that the appeal be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.
Challenge Before the Supreme Court
The petitioner challenged the High Court’s order dated 16.01.2026 before the Supreme Court. The petitioner submitted that, according to the latest material available on the GST Appellate Tribunal’s website, the Tribunal was not yet fully functional because cases had not even been registered or numbered.
The Supreme Court noted that the GST Appellate Tribunal had specifically been constituted to lessen the burden of the High Court in such matters for a specific purpose and that the Tribunal had become functional. The Court expressed the expectation that it would become fully functional as well.
Supreme Court’s Direction for Priority Hearing
The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to mention the matter before the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal.
The liberty extended not merely to seeking registration and numbering of the case but also to requesting that the matter be taken up and, if required, at least heard for the purpose of considering any interim relief that the petitioner might require.
The Supreme Court was conscious that the GST Appellate Tribunal, because of its recent constitution and functioning, might be overloaded. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, particularly that the matter had been at the final stage before the High Court, the Supreme Court found it appropriate that discretion for priority hearing of the petitioner’s case be exercised.
The Court expressed that it had no doubt that the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal would take appropriate action if the matter was mentioned before him.
Effect on the High Court Judgment
The Supreme Court did not set aside the High Court’s order. Instead, the Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal for registration and numbering, priority consideration and, if required, consideration of interim relief.
Thus, the High Court’s direction relegating the matter to the GST Appellate Tribunal remained the basis for further proceedings, while the Supreme Court supplemented that course by permitting the petitioner to seek priority hearing in view of the circumstances recorded in its order.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Tax No.1142 of 2024, by which the High Court has not interfered in the matter on the ground that now the GST Appellate Tribunal has started functioning and the matter is required to be considered by the said Appellate Tribunal.
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the latest material available on the website of the GST Appellate Tribunal, the same has not yet fully functional for the reason that the cases have not even been registered/numbered.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid and taking into consideration the fact that, the GST Appellate Tribunal has specifically been constituted to lessen the load of the High Court in such matters for a specific purpose and the same has become functional, we expect that the same would start functioning fully also.
6. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to mention the matter before the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal for not only registering/numbering the case but also to take up the matter and if required, at least hear it for the purpose of any interim relief which the petitioner may require.
7. We are conscious that the GST Appellate Tribunal because of its recent constitution and functioning, may be overloaded but in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, when the matter was at the final stage before the High Court, we find it to be an appropriate case where a discretion for priority hearing of the case of the petitioner is required to be exercised. We have no 3 doubt that the President of the GST Appellate Tribunal would take appropriate action in the matter, if the matter is so mentioned.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
