GST Appellate Tribunal Can Grant Interim Relief, Including Stay On Recovery: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently held that the GST Appellate Tribunal possesses inherent and incidental powers to grant interim relief. This includes protection against recovery pending disposal of appeals.

The Court said that any interpretation to the contrary would render the appellate remedy “illusory” and defeat legislative intent.

A Division Bench of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe was hearing a writ petition filed by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. The bank had challenged recovery intimations and a Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026 issued while its appeal was pending before the Tribunal.

An Order-in-Original December 8, 2023 had confirmed tax liability against the Bank Its appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on June 12, 2024.

The Bank then filed an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal on 5 February 2026. Thereafter, recovery intimations dated 3 February 2026 and 6 February 2026 were issued. A Recovery Notice dated 6 February 2026 followed.

Before the High Court, HSBC argued that there is no provision under the CGST Act empowering the Tribunal to grant an interim stay. It contended that it was therefore constrained to invoke writ jurisdiction.

Rejecting this submission, the bench held that the appellate powers under Sections 111, 112, and 113 of the CGST Act are wide in their sweep. They include incidental powers to grant interim protection.

“The power to grant interim relief, including protection against recovery pending the Appeal, is inherent and incidental to the appellate jurisdiction conferred upon the Tribunal. Thus, the appellate power of the Tribunal being wide in its sweep, necessarily wields with the appellate tribunal, the authority and jurisdiction to pass appropriate interim orders relevant to subject matter of the appeal, so as to make the appellate remedy effective,” the court held.

The bench further observed:

“Such an interpretation would render the appellate remedy illusory and defeat the legislative intent.”

The Court added that it was “inconceivable” that the High Court should function as a forum for the grant of interim relief in matters squarely falling within the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Income Tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi. It noted that when wide appellate powers are conferred, they carry by necessary implication all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make the exercise of those powers fully effective.

Holding that the petitioner ought to move the tribunal for interim relief, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.

Considering that the petitioner had approached the Court urgently in view of the Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026, the bench granted limited protection. It directed that the petitioner be at liberty to file an interim application before the Appellate Tribunal within two weeks. Till such interim application is filed and decided by the Tribunal, the Recovery Notice dated February 6, 2026 shall not be acted upon by the respondents.

The court also permitted manual filing of the interim application if the electronic portal does not provide for such filing.

For Petitioner: Advocates Prasad Paranjape (Through V.C.) along with Bhavya Varma along with Kevin Gogri, instructed by Lumiere Law Partners

For Respondents: AGP Himanshu Takke