Section 162 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 deals with the bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters arising from or relating to actions taken, or purported to be taken, under the CGST Act.
The provision is designed to ensure that disputes arising directly from the administration and implementation of the GST law are dealt with through the statutory mechanisms created under the GST framework rather than through an ordinary civil suit.
The current statutory wording of Section 162 provides that, except as provided in Sections 117 and 118, no civil court has jurisdiction to deal with or decide any question arising from or relating to anything done or purported to be done under the CGST Act.
This is an important provision for understanding the relationship between GST authorities, the statutory GST appeal system and the ordinary jurisdiction of civil courts.
What Is Section 162 of the CGST Act?
Section 162 is titled “Bar on jurisdiction of civil courts.”
It contains a single statutory provision:
“Save as provided in sections 117 and 118, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to deal with or decide any question arising from or relating to anything done or purported to be done under this Act.”
The section therefore creates a statutory exclusion of ordinary civil-court jurisdiction over questions arising from or relating to actions taken or purportedly taken under the CGST Act.
The section also expressly refers to Sections 117 and 118, which provide for appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court respectively.
Therefore, Section 162 should not be read in isolation. Its meaning becomes clearer when it is read together with the GST appellate provisions.
Purpose of Section 162
GST is administered through a specialised statutory framework.
The CGST Act provides mechanisms for:
- assessment;
- determination of tax;
- recovery;
- inspection;
- search and seizure;
- adjudication;
- appeals;
- rectification;
- revision; and
- further appeals to higher courts in specified circumstances.
If every dispute arising from GST proceedings could be independently brought before an ordinary civil court, it could interfere with the specialised procedures created by the GST legislation.
Section 162 therefore establishes a jurisdictional bar for civil courts in relation to questions arising from or relating to things done or purportedly done under the CGST Act.
Meaning of “No Civil Court Shall Have Jurisdiction”
The expression “no civil court shall have jurisdiction” means that an ordinary civil court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a question falling within the statutory prohibition merely because a taxpayer or another person seeks to frame the dispute as a civil claim.
The nature of the dispute is important.
If the dispute concerns something done or purportedly done under the CGST Act, Section 162 may prevent an ordinary civil court from dealing with or deciding that question.
The statutory wording is broad because it covers questions “arising from or relating to” anything done or purported to be done under the Act.
What Does “Anything Done or Purported to Be Done” Mean?
Section 162 does not refer only to actions that are ultimately found to be legally correct.
It also covers things “purported to be done” under the CGST Act.
This wording is significant because a dispute may arise over whether a GST authority properly exercised a statutory power.
Section 162 is concerned with questions arising from or relating to the action purportedly taken under the GST Act.
However, the existence of the civil-court bar does not mean that every action of a GST officer is immune from all judicial scrutiny. The appropriate statutory appellate or constitutional remedy depends on the nature of the dispute and the circumstances.
GST Has Its Own Appeal Mechanism
One of the main reasons Section 162 is important is that the CGST Act itself establishes a hierarchy for challenging GST decisions.
Depending on the nature of the order, the Act provides mechanisms involving:
- the adjudicating authority;
- Appellate Authority;
- Appellate Tribunal;
- High Court in specified cases; and
- Supreme Court in specified cases.
Therefore, a taxpayer should first identify the statutory remedy available for the particular GST order or action.
Section 162 supports the principle that GST disputes should ordinarily proceed through the statutory framework rather than through an ordinary civil suit.
Section 162 and Section 117
Section 162 expressly contains the words “Save as provided in sections 117 and 118.”
Section 117 deals with an appeal to the High Court.
Therefore, the bar created by Section 162 does not eliminate the High Court appellate jurisdiction specifically provided by Section 117.
This is an important qualification to the civil-court bar.
Section 117 in Simple Terms
Section 117 provides a statutory route for an appeal to the High Court against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed by that section.
The appeal is generally concerned with a substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal’s order.
Thus, Section 162 and Section 117 work together:
Section 162 → bars ordinary civil-court jurisdiction
Section 117 → specifically provides an appellate route to the High Court
Section 162 and Section 118
Section 118 deals with an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is therefore another express exception recognised in Section 162.
The section itself specifically says that the civil-court bar operates “save as provided in sections 117 and 118.”
This means Section 162 cannot be interpreted as eliminating the statutory appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and Supreme Court provided under the CGST Act.
Section 162 Does Not Mean That Courts Have No Role in GST Matters
This is an important distinction.
Section 162 does not mean that GST matters can never reach a court.
Instead, it bars an ordinary civil court from dealing with or deciding questions covered by the provision, subject to the exceptions stated in Sections 117 and 118.
The GST Act itself provides appellate routes to higher courts.
In addition, questions concerning constitutional or other public-law remedies may involve the jurisdiction of constitutional courts depending on the facts and applicable legal principles. Section 162 should therefore not be interpreted as a blanket exclusion of every form of judicial review.
Difference Between Civil Court and High Court
The distinction between an ordinary civil court and a High Court is important.
Section 162 specifically uses the expression “civil court.”
Section 117 separately provides for an appeal to the High Court in specified circumstances.
Therefore, a taxpayer should not interpret Section 162 as meaning that a High Court can never examine a GST-related dispute.
The route and scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction depend on the applicable statutory or constitutional provision.
Section 162 and Statutory Appeals
A taxpayer receiving a GST order should determine whether the CGST Act provides an appeal against that particular order.
For example, Chapter XVIII of the CGST Act contains provisions dealing with appeals and revision.
The statutory appeal mechanism may prescribe:
- the authority to whom an appeal must be filed;
- limitation period;
- pre-deposit requirements;
- form and procedure;
- grounds of appeal; and
- further appellate remedies.
Section 162 reinforces the importance of using the appropriate statutory mechanism rather than filing an ordinary civil suit concerning a GST matter covered by the statutory bar.
Example – GST Demand Order
Suppose a GST officer passes an order determining tax, interest and penalty against a registered person.
The taxpayer disagrees with the order.
The taxpayer generally needs to examine the appeal mechanism available under the CGST Act rather than simply filing an ordinary civil suit asking a civil court to decide whether the GST demand is legally correct.
The specific appellate route will depend on the nature of the order and the provisions applicable to it.
Section 162 is relevant because it bars a civil court from dealing with or deciding questions arising from or relating to things done or purported to be done under the CGST Act, subject to the statutory exceptions.
Example – GST Recovery Action
Suppose the department begins recovery proceedings under the CGST Act after a legally enforceable liability becomes payable.
If the taxpayer wants to challenge the legality of the GST action, the taxpayer must consider the remedies provided by the GST law and other applicable legal remedies.
Section 162 prevents the dispute from being converted into an ordinary civil suit where the question falls within the statutory bar.
Example – Assessment Proceedings
Suppose a taxpayer disputes an assessment or determination made under the CGST Act.
The taxpayer cannot simply assume that filing a civil suit is an alternative to the GST appeal process.
The appropriate remedy must be determined from the CGST Act and the nature of the impugned action.
Section 162 forms part of the legislative framework that restricts ordinary civil-court jurisdiction over GST matters.
Section 162 and Section 73
Section 73 deals with determination of tax not paid, short paid, erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for reasons other than fraud or wilful misstatement or suppression, for the periods and circumstances to which Section 73 applies.
If a taxpayer disputes an order arising from such proceedings, the taxpayer should examine the applicable statutory appeal mechanism.
Section 162 means that an ordinary civil court does not ordinarily become the forum for deciding a question arising from or relating to the GST action.
Section 162 and Section 74
Section 74 deals with specified cases involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression for the periods covered by that provision.
Again, a dispute arising from a Section 74 proceeding is governed by the GST statutory framework and applicable appellate remedies.
The existence of Section 162 reinforces that an ordinary civil suit is not the normal route for challenging an action taken under the CGST Act.
Section 162 and Section 74A
Section 74A provides the statutory framework for determination of certain tax not paid or short paid, erroneous refunds and wrongly availed or utilised input tax credit for the financial years to which that provision applies.
Where a dispute arises from an order under the GST law, the taxpayer should identify the appeal or other remedy provided by the applicable provisions.
Section 162 remains relevant to the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts.
Section 162 and Section 129
Section 129 deals with detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit in specified circumstances.
A taxpayer whose goods are detained may have remedies under the GST law and applicable judicial procedures.
Section 162 does not mean that a taxpayer has no remedy. Rather, it means that an ordinary civil court cannot deal with or decide a question falling within the statutory bar.
The specific remedy depends on the nature of the detention, order and circumstances.
Section 162 and Section 130
Section 130 deals with confiscation of goods or conveyances and imposition of penalty in specified circumstances.
Where an order is passed under Section 130, the affected person should examine the applicable statutory appeal provisions.
The appropriate remedy is determined by the GST legislation rather than by automatically treating the dispute as an ordinary civil claim.
👉 Read More → Section 164 – Power of Government to make rules
Section 162 and Section 160
Section 160 provides that an assessment, reassessment, adjudication, review, revision, appeal, rectification, notice, summons or other proceedings are not necessarily invalid merely because of a mistake, defect or omission if they are substantially in conformity with the Act.
Section 162 deals with a different issue: jurisdiction of civil courts.
- Section 160 concerns validity despite certain defects; and
- Section 162 concerns the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Section 162 and Section 161
Section 161 provides a mechanism for rectifying an error apparent on the face of the record in a decision, order, notice, certificate or other document issued under the GST law, subject to the statutory conditions and time limits.
If a taxpayer believes that an order contains an apparent error, the taxpayer should consider whether Section 161 is applicable.
Section 162 does not replace the rectification mechanism.
Section 162 and Section 117 – High Court Appeal
The specific reference to Section 117 is one of the most important aspects of Section 162.
Section 117 provides a statutory appeal to the High Court against specified orders of the Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal under Section 117 is subject to the requirements prescribed by the CGST Act, including the requirement concerning a substantial question of law.
Therefore, a taxpayer should distinguish between:
Civil suit before an ordinary civil court
and
Statutory appeal before the High Court under Section 117
Section 162 bars the former in the circumstances covered by the provision, while expressly preserving the latter.
Section 162 and Section 118 – Supreme Court Appeal
Section 118 provides the statutory route for appeal to the Supreme Court in specified circumstances.
The express reference to Section 118 in Section 162 confirms that the civil-court bar is not intended to prevent the Supreme Court appeal mechanism created by the CGST Act.
The statutory hierarchy can therefore be broadly understood as:
GST adjudication → statutory appellate mechanism → High Court under Section 117, where applicable → Supreme Court under Section 118, where applicable
The exact route depends on the type of order and the statutory conditions.
Does Section 162 Bar a Writ Petition?
Section 162 specifically bars the jurisdiction of civil courts.
A writ petition before a High Court under the Constitution is a different legal remedy from an ordinary civil suit.
Therefore, Section 162 should not be described as an absolute prohibition on High Court jurisdiction.
Constitutional courts retain their jurisdiction under the Constitution, subject to established principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The availability of an alternative statutory remedy is an important consideration in determining whether a High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction in a particular GST dispute, but that question is distinct from the civil-court bar contained in Section 162.
Section 162 Does Not Create a Bar Against Every Legal Remedy
A common misconception is that Section 162 completely protects GST authorities from legal challenges.
That is not the correct way to understand the provision.
The section specifically addresses the jurisdiction of civil courts.
It does not state that every action taken under GST is immune from review by every judicial forum.
Instead, taxpayers have to identify the legally appropriate remedy, which may include:
- statutory appeal;
- rectification where applicable;
- revision where applicable;
- appeal to the High Court under Section 117;
- appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 118; or
- an appropriate constitutional remedy where legally maintainable.
Why Is Section 162 Important for GST Taxpayers?
Section 162 is important because GST disputes often involve statutory orders and proceedings.
A taxpayer who receives:
- a demand order;
- assessment order;
- adjudication order;
- recovery action;
- confiscation order;
- detention-related order; or
- another GST proceeding
should first identify the statutory framework applicable to that action.
The taxpayer should not assume that an ordinary civil suit is available simply because the taxpayer has suffered a financial or commercial consequence.
Practical Steps When Challenging a GST Order
If a taxpayer disagrees with a GST order, the following approach can help identify the appropriate remedy:
1. Identify the Exact Order
Determine which section of the CGST Act was used to issue the order.
2. Check the Date of Communication
Many GST remedies have statutory limitation periods.
3. Identify the Appellate Authority
Determine which authority has jurisdiction over the particular order.
4. Check the Pre-Deposit Requirement
Some GST appeals require payment of admitted amounts and a prescribed percentage of the disputed tax before recovery is stayed.
👉 Read More → Section 162 – Bar on jurisdiction of civil courts
5. Review the Grounds of Challenge
Identify whether the dispute concerns:
- facts;
- interpretation of GST law;
- limitation;
- natural justice;
- jurisdiction;
- valuation;
- classification;
- input tax credit; or
- another legal issue.
6. Examine Further Remedies
If the statutory appeal is decided, examine whether a further appeal or other legally available remedy exists.
7. Avoid Assuming Civil-Court Jurisdiction
Section 162 should be considered before filing an ordinary civil suit concerning an action taken under the CGST Act.
Section 162 and Natural Justice
Section 162 is a jurisdictional provision and does not itself remove the principles of natural justice applicable to GST proceedings.
Where another provision of the CGST Act requires:
- notice;
- opportunity of hearing;
- reasoned order; or
- other procedural safeguards,
those requirements continue to apply.
A taxpayer challenging a GST action should therefore distinguish between:
- the question of whether the civil court has jurisdiction; and
- whether the GST authority complied with the procedural requirements imposed by the GST law.
Section 162 and Jurisdictional Errors
A GST order may sometimes be challenged on the ground that the officer lacked statutory jurisdiction or acted beyond the authority conferred by law.
Whether such a challenge can be entertained by a particular judicial forum depends on the applicable statutory and constitutional principles.
Section 162 should not be read as automatically validating every action merely because a GST officer purported to act under the CGST Act.
The section bars civil-court jurisdiction over questions arising from or relating to things done or purported to be done under the Act; the appropriate judicial or appellate remedy must be determined separately.
Section 162 and Civil Suits for Damages
The application of Section 162 to a particular civil claim depends on the nature of the claim and whether the question arises from or relates to something done or purported to be done under the CGST Act.
Therefore, a taxpayer should not assume that describing a dispute as a claim for damages automatically takes it outside Section 162.
The exact cause of action and relief sought need to be examined in the context of the statutory bar.
Section 162 – Important Distinction
The central distinction can be summarised as follows:
| Issue | Section 162 Position |
|---|---|
| Ordinary civil suit concerning GST statutory action | Civil court jurisdiction barred where the question falls within Section 162 |
| Appeal under Section 117 | Expressly preserved |
| Appeal under Section 118 | Expressly preserved |
| Statutory GST appeal | Must be considered according to the applicable GST provision |
| High Court constitutional jurisdiction | Not the same as ordinary civil-court jurisdiction |
| Supreme Court constitutional/statutory jurisdiction | Not eliminated merely by describing Section 162 as a blanket court bar |
| Rectification under Section 161 | Separate GST statutory mechanism |
| GST adjudication | Governed by GST statutory provisions |
Section 162 and the GST Appellate Hierarchy
The broader GST dispute-resolution structure helps explain why Section 162 exists.
A simplified structure is:
Proper Officer / Adjudicating Authority
↓
Appellate Authority
↓
Appellate Tribunal
↓
High Court under Section 117, where statutory conditions are satisfied
↓
Supreme Court under Section 118, where applicable
The exact appellate route depends on the nature of the order.
Section 162 prevents an ordinary civil court from becoming an alternative forum for questions arising from or relating to actions under the CGST Act, while expressly preserving Sections 117 and 118.
Section 162 and Section 117 vs Section 118
| Provision | Subject |
|---|---|
| Section 162 | Bar on jurisdiction of civil courts |
| Section 117 | Appeal to High Court |
| Section 118 | Appeal to Supreme Court |
The express reference to Sections 117 and 118 in Section 162 makes these provisions particularly important when interpreting the scope of the civil-court bar.
Key Takeaways of Section 162
Section 162 can be understood through the following points:
- Section 162 deals with the bar on jurisdiction of civil courts.
- It contains a single substantive provision.
- It applies to questions arising from or relating to anything done or purported to be done under the CGST Act.
- An ordinary civil court cannot deal with or decide a question falling within the statutory bar.
- The section begins with the words “Save as provided in sections 117 and 118.”
- Section 117 provides for appeal to the High Court in specified circumstances.
- Section 118 provides for appeal to the Supreme Court in specified circumstances.
- Section 162 therefore does not eliminate the appellate jurisdiction expressly provided by the CGST Act.
- The provision supports the specialised GST dispute-resolution framework.
- A taxpayer should identify the applicable GST appellate remedy before considering litigation.
- Section 162 is different from Section 161, which deals with rectification.
- It is also different from Section 160, which concerns validity of proceedings despite certain defects.
- Section 162 specifically concerns civil-court jurisdiction.
- It should not be interpreted as a blanket prohibition on every form of judicial review.
- Constitutional remedies and statutory appeals are legally distinct from an ordinary civil suit.
- The precise remedy available in a GST dispute depends on the nature of the action, the order involved and the applicable statutory provisions.
- Section 162 should be read particularly with Sections 117 and 118.
Conclusion
Section 162 of the CGST Act establishes an important jurisdictional rule: ordinary civil courts cannot deal with or decide questions arising from or relating to anything done or purported to be done under the CGST Act, except as specifically provided in Sections 117 and 118.
The provision is intended to keep GST disputes within the specialised statutory framework created by the GST legislation. Instead of allowing an ordinary civil suit to become an alternative mechanism for challenging GST proceedings, the Act provides its own mechanisms for adjudication, appeal and further judicial scrutiny.
At the same time, Section 162 should not be misunderstood as meaning that GST authorities are beyond judicial scrutiny. The provision specifically preserves the statutory appeal routes under Sections 117 and 118, and constitutional courts have distinct jurisdiction that is not the same as the jurisdiction of an ordinary civil court.
For a taxpayer, the practical importance of Section 162 is that a dispute arising from a GST order or action should first be analysed in terms of the specific statutory remedy available under the CGST Act. The taxpayer should identify the relevant section, limitation period, appellate authority, pre-deposit requirement and possible further remedies before choosing the appropriate legal course.
In simple terms, Section 162 means that an ordinary civil court is generally not the forum for deciding questions arising from or relating to actions taken under the CGST Act. The GST law provides a specialised dispute-resolution structure, while Sections 117 and 118 expressly preserve the specified routes to the High Court and Supreme Court.
Based on Google's Helpful Content System, this article emphasizes user value, transparency, and accuracy. It incorporates principles of E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness).
Why Choose Sarkari Bakery?
Official Information
Government schemes & banking information based on official sources.
Step-by-Step Guides
Simple application process explained for every service.
Regular Updates
Content updated whenever official rules or services change.
People-First Content
Helpful, transparent and user-focused content.
Pingback: Section 160 – Assessment Proceedings, etc., Not to Be Invalid on Certain Grounds - Sarkari Bakery