Summary: The inaugural GSTAT E-Journal, Volume I, containing judgments up to 31 August 2026, marks an important development in GST jurisprudence by providing an authoritative platform for reporting decisions of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. This article discusses ten decisions considered by the author to have implications beyond their individual facts. The rulings address recurring GST controversies including the distinction between Sections 73 and 74, transitional credit under Section 140, intermediary services under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act, ITC and refund in bill-to-ship-to transactions, GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch, mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4), internal movement of goods under the same GSTIN, incorrect reporting of ITC under different tax heads, allegations of fraud or suppression, retrospective application of pre-deposit requirements under Section 112(8), and statutory timelines under Section 129(3). The decisions indicate emerging emphasis on establishing statutory ingredients before invoking fraud provisions, distinguishing substantive tax entitlement from procedural or portal imperfections, maintaining jurisdictional discipline, and requiring evidence rather than suspicion. They also consider GSTAT’s role as the final fact-finding appellate forum under GST. The article concludes that regular publication of authentic GSTAT decisions, supported by comprehensive indexing and timely reporting, can contribute materially to certainty, consistency and development of coherent national GST jurisprudence.
Ten Significant GSTAT Rulings From Inaugural GSTAT E-Journal | Emerging Jurisprudence under GST
- Introduction
- 1. Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Odisha
- 2. Tata Unistore Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST & Ex., Navi Mumbai
- 3. Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax
- 4. Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited (GSTAT Kolkata)
- 5. N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka
- 6. M.S. Steels v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST
- 7. Lucknow Test House v. Shashi Bhushan Singh
- 8. Santhome Latex Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST
- 9. Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Appeal-I Commissioner
- 10. Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST
- BROADER JURISPRUDENTIAL TRENDS
- CONCLUSION
Introduction
The constitution and operationalisation of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (“GSTAT”) marks an important stage in the evolution of GST jurisprudence in India. For almost nine years after introduction of GST, taxpayers and professionals substantially depended upon rulings of High Courts, Advance Ruling Authorities and departmental clarifications for resolution of interpretational disputes. With GSTAT now functioning, a specialised appellate jurisprudence has started taking shape.
An equally commendable initiative is the publication of the GSTAT E-Journal, Volume I, containing judgments up to 31 August 2026. The Journal has been conceived as an authoritative and accessible platform for disseminating GSTAT decisions and for identifying important principles emerging from the Tribunal. In its Foreword, the Hon’ble President of GSTAT has appropriately emphasised certainty, consistency and accessibility in GST jurisprudence.
The publication deserves appreciation. Availability of authentic reported decisions directly from GSTAT will greatly assist taxpayers, professionals, departmental officers, academicians and courts. It is earnestly hoped that GSTAT will continue publishing the E-Journal regularly, preferably with comprehensive subject indexing and timely reporting of decisions, so that the professional community at large can benefit from the developing jurisprudence.
The inaugural volume contains twenty regular GST decisions besides anti-profiteering matters. The present article discusses ten decisions which, in the view of the author, have wider implications beyond their individual facts.
1. Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Odisha
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 1 — Principal Bench
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | Difference between liability disclosed in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B; invocation of Section 74; powers of the First Appellate Authority and jurisdiction of GSTAT on questions of fact. |
| Facts in brief | A difference of about ₹27.06 lakh existed between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B. The taxpayer explained that debit/credit notes and adjustments were duly recorded in books but were not properly reflected in periodical returns. |
| Held | Proceedings under Section 74 cannot survive merely because of a return mismatch when fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade tax is not established. Where Section 74 fails, Section 75(2) requires the Proper Officer to redetermine liability as if notice had been issued under Section 73. The appellate authority cannot itself undertake such redetermination. GSTAT also held that it can examine questions of fact and is the last fact-finding appellate forum under GST. |
| Jurisprudence established | A mismatch is an evidentiary starting point, not proof of fraud. Section 74 has independent jurisdictional ingredients. Further, GSTAT’s appellate jurisdiction is wider than a second appeal restricted to substantial questions of law. |
This is likely to become a leading authority on the distinction between Sections 73 and 74 and on the appellate architecture under GST.
2. Tata Unistore Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST & Ex., Navi Mumbai
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 37
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | Whether GST authorities can reopen the admissibility of CENVAT/VAT credit earned under the pre-GST regime while examining transitional credit under Section 140. |
| Held | GST authorities cannot undertake a de novo examination under Section 74 of credit validly standing under the erstwhile law, where such credit had remained unchallenged in that regime. Any challenge to wrong availment under the former law had to be made under the provisions of that law. The Tribunal also accepted transition of Krishi Kalyan Cess following the applicable jurisdictional High Court ruling and rejected denial of VAT credit unsupported by specific evidence. |
| Jurisprudence established | Transition of credit into GST does not confer a fresh jurisdiction upon GST authorities to reopen the original entitlement under the earlier tax regime. |
In the view of the author, this ruling draws an important jurisdictional line between transition of credit and reassessment of historical eligibility.
3. Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of State Tax
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 15
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | Whether a foreign group entity rendering centralised procurement services was an “intermediary” under Section 2(13) of the IGST Act. |
| Held | Intermediary requires three parties, two distinct supplies and a role of arranging or facilitating another supply. Where the service provider renders substantive procurement services on its own account as an independent contractor, the exclusion in Section 2(13) applies. The foreign entity was therefore not an intermediary; Section 13(2) governed the place of supply and the transaction constituted import of services. |
| Jurisprudence established | Mere facilitation of commercial activity involving third parties does not automatically create intermediary service. The contractual substance and “own account” character of the service are crucial. |
This decision is particularly relevant for multinational groups having procurement, marketing, sourcing or support arrangements.
4. Principal Commissioner, CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited (GSTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Nos. APL/10/KLK/2026 and APL/14/KLK/2026, common final order dated 20 August 2026.
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 99
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | ITC/refund in bill-to-ship-to transactions; absence of toll records; cancellation of registrations of upstream suppliers. |
| Held | GST law does not require goods in a bill-to-ship-to model to physically originate from the registered premises of the invoicing supplier. Where actual receipt/export was established through invoices, e-way bills, transport documents, banking records and export evidence, absence of particular toll-plaza records was not fatal. Further, refund/ITC could not be denied merely because registrations of second-line suppliers were cancelled when the taxpayer’s direct supplier was valid and no nexus with remote defaults was established. |
| Jurisprudence established | A genuine recipient cannot automatically be made responsible for every irregularity occurring several levels upstream in the supply chain. Proof of physical movement must be assessed cumulatively, not through one document in isolation. |
This is an important ruling for bona fide purchasers facing ITC disputes arising from alleged supplier-chain irregularities.
5. N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka
APPEAL NO. APL/2/BUR/2026, AUGUST 31, 2026
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatch, personal hearing under Section 75(4), and necessity of ASMT-10 before Section 73 proceedings. |
| Held | For the relevant early GST period, GSTR-2A was essentially a facilitation/reconciliation tool and mismatch could not be treated as automatic inadmissibility of ITC. Proper verification was required. The order was also vitiated by failure to grant mandatory personal hearing. However, absence of ASMT-10 did not automatically invalidate proceedings under Section 73 because Sections 61 and 73 operate independently. |
| Jurisprudence established | Portal mismatch is not a substitute for statutory verification; personal hearing is a substantive safeguard; scrutiny under Section 61 is not necessarily a jurisdictional prerequisite for every Section 73 proceeding. |
6. M.S. Steels v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 80
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | Movement of goods between premises covered by the same GSTIN, without an e-way bill. |
| Held | Movement from one premise to another of the same registered person under the same GSTIN, without consideration and without a second person, does not constitute “supply” under Section 7. Consequently, tax under Section 9 and corresponding Section 129 penalty could not be imposed merely by treating the movement as supply. The Tribunal nevertheless recognised that Rule 138 may independently require an e-way bill even for movement other than supply. |
| Jurisprudence established | Movement of goods and supply of goods are distinct concepts. A documentary violation cannot by itself convert a non-supply into a taxable supply. |
This distinction is highly relevant for warehouses, godowns, testing, repairs and internal movement of goods.
7. Lucknow Test House v. Shashi Bhushan Singh
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 174
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | ITC reflected under an incorrect tax head although aggregate eligible credit was allegedly not exceeded. |
| Held | Mere classification/reporting of otherwise eligible ITC under an incorrect tax head does not automatically amount to excess availment if aggregate credit does not exceed substantive entitlement and corresponding eligible credit remained unclaimed under another head. Matter was remanded for verification. |
| Jurisprudence established | Substance of ITC entitlement is relevant and a tax-head reporting error should not, without verification, be treated as excess economic benefit. |
The ruling does not legitimise arbitrary cross-utilisation; rather, it requires examination of the taxpayer’s actual aggregate entitlement.
8. Santhome Latex Enterprises v. Commissioner of CGST
Appeal No.: APL/21/TVP/2026- Final Order No. 04/TVP/KERALA/2026, AUGUST 21, 2026
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | Whether allegedly ineligible ITC and failure to respond to audit automatically justify Section 74. |
| Held | Mere availment of allegedly ineligible ITC does not establish fraud or suppression. Reconciliation disclosed through GSTR-9C/annual filings weakened the allegation of concealment. Mere non-response to an audit enquiry, without further evidence, does not constitute suppression. Further, appellate proceedings cannot sustain a demand on a new ground outside the show-cause notice. |
| Jurisprudence established | “Ineligible ITC” and “fraudulent ITC” are not synonymous. Section 74 requires pleading and proof of the statutory ingredients, and adjudication cannot travel beyond the SCN. |
9. Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Appeal-I Commissioner
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 33
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | Retrospective applicability of the amended Section 112(8) pre-deposit requirement in penalty-only appeals. |
| Held | Right of appeal is a substantive vested right. A subsequently introduced, more onerous pre-deposit condition cannot apply retrospectively in the absence of express language or necessary implication. The appeal arising from earlier orders was admitted without the additional pre-deposit introduced from 01.10.2025. |
| Jurisprudence established | Conditions affecting a vested appellate remedy ordinarily operate prospectively unless the legislature clearly provides otherwise. |
This ruling is significant for the large number of legacy orders now reaching GSTAT.
10. Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST
(2026) 1 GSTAT E-Journal 90
| Particular | Discussion |
|---|---|
| Core issue | Whether the statutory time limit under Section 129(3) for passing a detention/penalty order is mandatory. |
| Held | The seven-day period under Section 129(3) was held mandatory. The penalty order passed substantially beyond the prescribed period was illegal and without jurisdiction. The penalty was quashed and release of bank guarantee directed. |
| Jurisprudence established | Statutory timelines governing coercive and penal proceedings are not merely administrative directions; they operate as safeguards against indefinite detention and delayed adjudication. |
BROADER JURISPRUDENTIAL TRENDS
A reading of these ten decisions reveals certain encouraging trends in the early jurisprudence of GSTAT.
Firstly, the Tribunal is insisting that the statutory ingredients of fraud and suppression must actually be established before Section 74 can be invoked. Return mismatch, alleged ITC ineligibility or failure to answer an audit query cannot automatically be elevated into fraud.
Secondly, GSTAT is distinguishing between substantive tax entitlement and portal/procedural imperfections. GSTR-2A mismatch, tax-head errors and limitations of system-generated data are being subjected to factual verification rather than mechanical confirmation of demand.
Thirdly, GSTAT appears conscious of jurisdictional discipline. Whether it is reopening pre-GST credits, converting Section 74 into Section 73, imposing retrospective appellate conditions or acting beyond statutory time limits, the Tribunal has repeatedly examined whether the authority concerned was acting within the limits prescribed by Parliament.
Fourthly, the decisions indicate that suspicion cannot replace evidence. This is particularly evident in cases concerning remote suppliers, physical movement of goods and allegations of improper ITC.
In the view of the author, these principles are important for both Revenue and taxpayers. They do not dilute legitimate tax enforcement; rather, they insist that enforcement must remain within the statutory framework and be supported by evidence.
CONCLUSION
The first set of GSTAT rulings demonstrates the importance of a specialised appellate institution in bringing consistency to GST administration. The decisions discussed above deal with some of the most frequently litigated areas—Sections 73 and 74, ITC, transitional credit, intermediary services, e-way bills, detention, natural justice and appellate remedies.
The GSTAT E-Journal is therefore a highly welcome institutional initiative. An authentic, regularly updated repository of Tribunal judgments will reduce uncertainty, prevent selective reliance upon unverified copies of orders and help develop a coherent body of national GST jurisprudence.
It is respectfully suggested that GSTAT should continue this publication on a regular basis, with comprehensive subject-wise indexing, cross-referencing of conflicting/co-ordinate Bench decisions and timely publication of all significant orders. Such an initiative will serve not only advocates and chartered accountants but also tax administrators, businesses, academicians and courts throughout the country.
The success of GST ultimately depends not merely upon collection of revenue but equally upon certainty of law, consistency of administration and confidence in the appellate process. The commencement of GSTAT’s reported jurisprudence, together with publication of its E-Journal, is an important step in that direction.
