With the rise in the number of GST cases all over India, it is expected that more than 1 Lakh cases will be registered before the GSTAT in the initial phase in benches all across India. This primarily shows two things: First, that indirect taxes (specially GST) is not high value matter laws. Even a small taxpayer aggrieved from an appeal order of even couple of lakh rupees will go to the GSTAT for proper resolution. Second, there will be immense work load on the tribunal and the professionals at least in the initial phases, which can be only curbed in the future by reducing litigation through consistency in application of law across India.
To this effect, GSTAT procedure Rules, 2025 issued vide Notification dated 24.04.2025 shall govern the operations of the tribunal. Rule 18 states that “An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be filed online on GSTAT Portal in Form prescribed under the Rules”. The e-filing portal of GSTAT is the only gateway through which an appeal may be filed, and with this, the technical difficulties on the platform may constitute significant problems in filing of the appeal.
The fundamental premise being that law is the foundational pillar, and the e-filing portal is only a medium/ platform to allow the law to function. However, there might come some difficulties in the functioning of the portal and the law, which may lead to inconsistencies in delivery of justice. This article only focuses on the most important aspects relevant while filing an appeal before the GSTAT:
1. Limitation
The Central Government vide Removal of Difficulty order no. 9 dated 3.12.2019 and vide Circular No. 132/2/2020-GST dated 18.3.2020 has extended the period of limitation for filing of the second appeals to the GSTAT. However, this is applicable only till the expiry of the initial phases of the GSTAT (whenever it may end). Section 112 of the CGST Act prescribes three months’ time duration to file an appeal from the date of communication of the appeal order. Therefore, filing of an appeal after the prescribed time limit may barr the appeal from limitation. The online portal should still allow the filing of the time barred appeals with condonation of delay application. Interestingly, the condonation of delay application can be filed along with grounds of appeal at the time of uploading the documents on the portal, thereby saving the extra cost of filing of new application. In any case, as far as the portal goes till now, the limitation aspect should not be problem in filing of the appeal on portal.
2. Who may file an appeal before the GSTAT
A serious practical question arises as to who may file an appeal before the GSTAT, Section 112 of the Act talking for GSTAT says that “(1) Any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under section 107 or section 108 of this Act…].” Whereas Section 107 of the Act talking for the appellate authority says that “(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or …” And Section 117 of the Act talking for the high court says that “Any person aggrieved by any order passed by the 1[State Benches] of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and the High Court may admit such appeal, if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.”
The harmonious interpretation of these sections shows that an appeal before the first appellate authority may be preferred by any person who is aggrieved from any order. For instance, in the cases of goods in transit, the owner of the goods even if not made party to the proceedings can challenge the impugned order before the appellate authority. On the other hand, the language of section 112 prescribes only those persons to file an appeal before GSTAT who have crossed the channel of the first appeal and are aggrieved from the appeal order passed by the first appellate authority. Therefore, not everyone can prefer to go to GSTAT as per choice, proper channel needs to be crossed for pursuing remedy before GSTAT.
Interestingly, in the current scenario, if an appeal order has been passed against the taxpayer, the natural remedy was to pursue WRIT Jurisdiction of the respective High Courts. WRIT jurisdiction is open against any order or action by the governmental/ departmental authorities. However, with the functioning of the GSTAT, some High Courts have shown reluctance in directly interfering with the orders and have preferred to transfer the case to the GSTAT. The problem with this approach is that since GSTAT can only hear matters against orders passed under section 107 or 108 of the Act, the GSTAT jurisdiction is limited to only adjudging the first appeal orders.
Considering for instance that if there is any interim action taken by the departmental authority/ proper officer which deserves to be challenged in the court of the law, but is not an order against which departmental first appeal can be preferred, then the only remedy available with the taxpayer is to go under the WRIT jurisdiction in the High Court.
The point of contradiction in this approach is visible wherein the constitutional courts and legislature intend to reduce the burden from the High courts and Supreme Court of India, for which tribunals like GSTAT were formed, and, at the same time restricting the powers and jurisdiction of the tribunal.
There is stark difference GST practice and law. For instance, in the goods in transit cases, if an appeal order has been passed to release the goods and vehicle with immediate effect and the same has been communicated to the proper officer of the case, the proper officer still does not release the vehicle and the goods on the ground of seeking legal advice and other aligned legal reasons, the natural remedy to go to High Court might take time for the taxpayer even with filing of urgent application. On the other hand, had it been under the jurisdiction of the GSTAT, the recourse of the taxpayer would have been stronger and more specialised. Similarly, for every action against which first appeal is not available, the GSTAT should be the right forum to get immediate relief instead of burdening the constitutional courts of India.
If section 112 was worded in this manner with the intent to curb the powers of jurisdiction of the GSTAT and limit it to only for first appeal orders, then it is against the reformation scheme of reducing the burden of the High Courts. On the other hand, if GSTAT (specialised tax tribunal) were to be allowed to hear matters against any order passed under section 107 or 108 and against any action taken by the proper officer which is not appealable in the first appeal, then the tribunal would have immense power to hear all kinds of disputes in GST litigation sphere. However, effecting this approach is impossible with the current e-filing portal and if at all this approach is allowed, then the portal would need all together new modifications. In essence, it can be argued that complexity in functioning of the e-filing portal might sometime act as a hindrance in adopting to change and the need of the hour.
3. Pre-deposit requirements
Pre-deposit is a unique and most important aspect of indirect taxation. There is a strong requirement of harmonious integration between the law and the e-filing portal. GST first appeals are filed via the GST common portal of the taxpayer itself wherein pre-deposit payment is automatic and mandatory, it can be setoff either through credit ledger or through cash ledger of the taxpayer. However, for the GSTAT, the e-filing portal does not have direct access to the GST common portal, because of which pre-deposit cannot be directly debited from the ledger of the GST common portal. The e-filing portal only verifies that the appellant has an account with the GST common portal and does not directly debit the payment of pre-deposit.
Thus, the taxpayer have to make a payment of pre-deposit through the GST common portal by making a payment towards the demand and then come back to the e-filing portal and upload the same at the stage of documents uploading. This feature is better for varied reasons, one being that the law requires pre-deposit of 10% of the remaining tax/penalty in addition to 10% already paid at the stage of first appeal. The disputed amount of tax/penalty may differ from the system generated APL04 and the appellant’s APL05, the portal fetches the complete disputed demand of APL04 and does not deduct the 10% already paid or maybe complete payment done. Thus, the determination of 10% for the purposes of pre-deposit at the stage of GSTAT is best left to the appellant.
On the contrary to this right approach, for some reason, the portal has been devised to seek court fees without which documents cannot be uploaded and the case cannot be filed. The anomaly with this situation is many and is addressed below.
4. Court fees for filing of an appeal in GSTAT
High and progressive fees structure for filing of the appeal before the GSTAT is a controversial issue. Rule 119 of the procedure rule says that “Fees. — (1) In respect of the several matters, there shall be paid fees as prescribed in the Schedule of Fees appended to these rules: Provided that no fee shall be payable or shall be liable to be collected on a petition or application filed or reference made by any departmental authority connected with a matter in question before the Appellate Tribunal….”
The schedule of fees refers to the Rule 110(5) of CGST/SGST/UTGST Rules, 2017. The prescribed court fee for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under the GST framework is structured on an ad valorem basis, linked to the quantum of tax, input tax credit, or penalty in dispute. Specifically, the fee is calculated at ₹1,000 for every ₹1 lakh of the amount involved, subject to a minimum threshold of ₹5,000 and a maximum cap of ₹25,000. In cases where the impugned order does not involve any demand of tax, interest, penalty, or fee, a flat fee of ₹5,000 is payable. Notably, no court fee is required for applications seeking rectification of errors before the Tribunal.
Provision of law in the procedure rules and the working of the e-filing portal might not correlate sometimes. For instance, for filing of an appeal for condonation of delay in the first appeal, the appellant should only file Rs. 5000 (minimum fees) as there is no amount of demand under dispute for the purposes of filing of the appeal before GSTAT, however, the e-filing portal fetches the demand data from ARN/CRN no., and thus the court fees fluctuate with the amount of demand under dispute in the actual case. In essence, there is no systematic recourse to file an appeal on account of reasons other than demand orders or other issues like registration, etc.
In this regard, practically if the taxpayer is subjected to excessive demand on account of ‘n’ no. of the possibilities such as increased turnover, undue addition of purchase of another years, etc which is in itself disputed, then the imposition of progressive court fees is detrimental in the interest of justice and is indirectly suffocating the taxpayer monetarily. Moreso, the court fees are non-refundable deposit which shall not be affected by the outcome of the appeal.
This raises another question, whether the taxpayer should mandatorily pay court fees for appeals dealing with condonation of delay, registration issue, and others without appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. The GST laws in force prescribes for court fees, but challengeable in light of the Constitution of India.
In essence, the appellant may be subjected to extraordinary court fees in appeals on miscellaneous reasons. This also leads to the question, whether the tribunal actually has the power to hear on miscellaneous reasons like that of condonation of delay? In any case, the portal should allow options of why is the appellant filing an appeal and simultaneously allow the option with the appellant to pay the court as done with pre-deposit. The mandatory rider of not proceeding further without first depositing on the portal is in essence acting against the position of law.
5. Powers of the tribunal to condone delay
There are two types of condonation of delay at the stage of GSTAT. One delay relates to filing of first appeal and appeal has been rejected without appreciation of merits just on the grounds of appeal being barred by limitation. Another delay relates to filing of second appeal before the GSTAT which needs to be condoned as such.
For the first category, Rule 10 of the procedure rules, 2025 provides “Inherent powers. – Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Appellate Tribunal.”
This rule prescribes high inherent powers to the tribunal to act in the interest of justice. Inherent powers of the appellate tribunal may include the power to condone delay, remand back the matter, issue relevant directions to the appellate authority for the case, restoration of the application, accepting any interlocutory application, etc. At the same time, it needs to be considered that these rules have been formed under section 111 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) and is formed by delegation. which raises the question whether such kinds of inherent powers prescribed through “RULES” are proportionally of same weight as which might be prescribed in the “ACT” itself? Powers under the Act is prescribed by act of the parliament and can be taken away by an act of the parliament. Whereas, powers under the Rules are prescribed by the of Government under the delegated legislation powers.
For the second category, section 112(6) of the Act prescribes that “The Appellate Tribunal may admit an appeal within three months after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (1) 4[or permit the filing of an application within three months after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (3)], or permit the filing of a memorandum of cross-objections within forty-five days after the expiry of the period referred to in sub-section (5) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period.”
This section provides the GSTAT the powers to condone delay in filing of the second appeal with the tribunal within three months from the expiry of period referred to in sub-section (1) of section 112.
Thus, bare perusal of Rule 10 of the Rules, and section 112 of the Act, it can be said that the tribunal has inherent powers to condone delay in first appeal, however limited power to condone delay till 3 months in filing of second appeal. This anomaly leads to the interpretation GSTAT possess procedural inherent power, and this cannot be considered as a source of substantive jurisdiction, leading to another question whether condonation of delay is a substantive or a procedural Act. Condonation of delay is procedural in nature, but refusal to condone results in finality of rights, thereby affecting substantive rights of the parties. Thus, in essence, it can be said that condonation of the delay application by the aggrieved is procedural in nature and can come under the ambit of Rule 10 of the GSTAT procedure rules. At the same time, condonation of delay in filing of the second appeal can also fall under ambit of Rule 10 of the Rules. In any case, the rationale and scope of these inherent powers under the GSTAT remain unsettled.
6. Mandatory translation of documents
Rule 23 of the ‘Procedure’ Rules mandates that appeal memo and other documents filed must be in English language or must be translated into English language. In practice, especially in the indirect tax matters, the adjudicatory officer and the appellate authority tend to pass the orders in the regional languages or in Hindi language. Few offices are transitioning into English language, for instance, the CGST and the DGGST departments generally pass the orders in English language, however the SGST offices may not necessarily rely on English language. Therefore, the impugned orders running into multiple pages are more likely passed in hindi/ other regional languages if passed by the SGST department (which is prevalent).
Hence translating lengthy orders, annexures, and departmental records often runs into tens of thousands of rupees per case. Since these costs are borne by taxpayers, the requirement acts as a substantial barrier for small businesses already struggling with compliance.
Conclusion
The article reflects that while the GST laws are coded in the Act and rules, the working of the tribunal is mainly governed by GSTAT procedure rules, 2025. What needs to be looked into is the fact that there can be serious differences in the mandate of the law and process required by the portal. There are only two solutions to this problem, either the portal allows and accommodates every situation which might be there in the tax law (which is very difficult and unreasonable) or the portal allows the flexibility in filing of the appeal. In doing so, removal of the mandatory court fees, pre-deposit is the key and must be looked into promptly. Another substantial suggestion in the GSTAT procedural jurisprudence is removal of progressive court fee’s structure and instead adoption of a minimum and lesser flat fee structure for all the appeals.
This article raises many questions that may arise in practice at the stage of GSTAT. In all, it can be seen that even before proper functioning of the tribunal across all the benches, a substantial need for reform is rising out of the rules.
Author Bio
