Practical Guide to GST
Adjudication & Appeals
including GSTAT

Under Section 116(2)(c) of the CGST Act, a Chartered Accountant who holds a certificate of practice and has not been debarred can act as authorised representative before tax authorities, the First Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The CA is the only professional authorised to represent on questions of fact before GSTAT — the final fact-finding authority.

• Deep domain knowledge — GST travels beyond financial statements (Schedule I transactions, time of supply under ICDS-III vs AS-9)
• Authorised at all stages: pre-SCN, audit, investigation, adjudication, appellate and revisionary
• Can assist advocates in High Court/Supreme Court without formal appearance rights — factual preparation, ground drafting, legal research
• GST compliance CA already knows the facts — dual role advantage in representation

• CA is NOT permitted to give statements or appear during investigation/summons on behalf of client — immediately becomes a witness
• Cannot give any assurance or guarantee on outcome of quasi-judicial proceedings
• Must act under instructions but not under dictation — professional expertise governs over client wishes
• Representing during investigation is neither permitted nor advisable; attending summons for client must be avoided

To present facts without any supposition or imagination about facts. CA acts under 'instructions' — cannot travel beyond the scope of those instructions. CA will neither guarantee outcome nor indemnify taxpayer for adverse outcome. While CA works under professional knowledge/ethics, accepting bona fide dues due to errors in self-assessment should be advised by the CA where warranted.

• Documented approach: Written mandate for all engagements specifying period/notice; standard power of attorney forms
• Objective assessment of facts: Facts are what are undisputed or supported by reliable evidence — not suppositions
• Transparency in process: Regular communication of progress even when no update available
• Meticulous habits: Meetings with 'start' and 'end' time; agenda for every client interaction; educate clients about your approach to reset their expectations from previous advisors

• CA and client are related to each other
• CA is disengaged from serving any group entities of that client
• CA is associated/working with Government on similar issues or same matter
• CA is also the auditor expressing opinion on financial statements
• CA is representing the other party in a contract negotiation engagement
• CA has financial or pecuniary interest in the client's business
• CA has accepted gifts, hospitality, honorarium or similar favours
• CA holds any place of office in client's business or associates
• CA is appointed as member of the Tribunal or for Government representation

• Ask for NOC from the CA previously representing
• Obtain confirmation that cancellation is not due to misrepresentation or fraud
• Obtain confirmation that no fee is due to the previous CA
• Share the reason for non-continuation by previous CA
• Request briefing of the case and original documents from previous CA

• Clients believe they are right and expect favourable outcomes immediately — CA must set right expectations and advise acceptance of genuine dues
• "Corruption is the cloak that hides incompetence" — maintain firm demeanour during interaction with tax authorities; submissiveness may be interpreted as lacking integrity
• Service in litigation is not just to support client's cause but to maintain unbiased loyalty to the law — not to the litigating parties
• Be cautious of actions guided by fear of adverse consequence or favour of unmerited benefits

• Liability limited by arrangement/agreement with client — normally capped at the amount of fee paid/payable for that engagement
• Unlimited liability may arise from: negligence, misrepresentation, breach of confidentiality, failure to comply with statutory/ethical obligations
• Engagement letters, indemnity clauses and professional indemnity insurance provide partial protection — not complete elimination of risk

Key cases: K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India (1984), Ashwani and Associates v. CCE (2000), TVS Motors v. AC (2018), Maneka Gandhi v. UoI AIR 1978 SC 597 — right to be heard is part of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

• Must NOT be vague — clear facts, specific charges, statutory provisions allegedly contravened
• Must specify the person chargeable to tax (served on the right person)
• Must contain allegations only — cannot pre-judge or conclude the issue
• Must quantify the proposed demand
• Relied-upon documents must be supplied with the SCN

• Must address findings on ALL issues raised in Notice and ALL contentions of the noticee
• Must specifically address judicial decisions cited by the noticee
• Must apply mind to facts, allegations, submissions and evidence in a holistic manner
• Must result in a "speaking Order" — reasoned findings, not mere confirmation
• Cannot go beyond the parameters of the allegations in the Notice (Section 75(7)) — fatal and incurable defect if violated

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 replaces the Indian Evidence Act. Principally the law is the same with additions for technology and international transactions. Evidence passes through three stages: (I) Relevancy (BSA Sec 3–50/IEA 5–55), (II) Facts to be Proved/Mode of Proof (BSA Sec 51–103/IEA 56–100), (III) Burden of Proof, Estoppel, Witnesses (BSA Sec 104–170/IEA 101–167).

• For classification disputes: Burden is ALWAYS on the Department to prove that classification adopted by assessee is wrong
• For fraud/extended period (Sec 74/74A): Department must prove fraud, wilful-misstatement or suppression — cannot just assert it
• For exemption claims: Burden is on the assessee to prove eligibility — once proved, onus shifts to Revenue to disprove
• For ITC eligibility: Section 155 CGST Act explicitly places burden on the person claiming credit

In criminal matters: proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. In GST adjudication proceedings: proof is determined on the facts and circumstances available in the particular case — lower threshold than criminal proceedings (Kashi Prasad Saraff v. CC, 1993).

The burden of proof lies on the person who has to prove the fact and never shifts. The onus of proof shifts — which is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. When one party creates a high degree of probability, onus shifts to the other to discharge their burden; failure to discharge = burden considered discharged against them.

Evidence must be produced from the earliest stage — starting from investigation. Additional evidence at appellate stage is heavily restricted.

• Evidence was not admitted but ought to have been considered (even if rejected on merits by lower authority)
• Could not be introduced earlier due to sufficient cause when called upon to submit
• Could not be introduced earlier due to sufficient cause but it pertains to any ground of appeal
• Sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence was not made available during earlier proceedings

Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (now BSA 2023 includes these provisions within the statutory framework) provide that electronic records are admissible as evidence subject to conditions. Electronic records are defined in Section 2(t) of IT Act 2000 as "data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche."

• Section 145 of CGST/SGST Act specifically recognises electronic form documents and output of electronic form as admissible evidence even without production of original — for GST proceedings
• GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A, e-way bills, e-invoices, portal-generated challans — all admissible as electronic records
• Digital signature verification, presumptions as to electronic agreements and electronic gazette are all recognised

Objective of investigation is to punish the guilty party — not just any willing party. "Not even a willing person can be made liable to pay tax unless liable as per law" (Articles 246A, 265, 300A of Constitution).

Under Section 126 of the Evidence Act / Section 132 of BSA 2023, no barrister/attorney/pleader/vakil/advocate can be permitted to disclose client communications made in the course of professional employment without express consent. This privilege extends to interpreters and clerks/employees of advocates (Sec 127 IEA / Sec 132(3) BSA).

The question is whether a CA qualifies as a "Pleader" under CPC/CrPC. CPC Section 2(15) defines pleader as "any person entitled to appear and plead for another in Court." CrPC Section 2(q) defines pleader as "person authorised by or under any law to practice in such Court."

Affidavits are written statements of facts made voluntarily under oath. They must be confined to facts the deponent can prove on their own account — must contain facts and grounds, not inferences or submissions.

GST is a self-assessment tax under Section 59. The invoice issued under Section 31 bears the outcome of determination in self-assessment (per ITC Ltd. v. CCE (2019)). The liability self-assessed covers:

• Determination of taxability, classification, exemptions, computation of final liability
• Determination of non-taxability or availability of exemption with all conditions

Revenue bears the burden under Section 155 to challenge and impeach self-assessment carried out by the Registered Person. The self-assessment carries a rebuttable presumption of correctness in favour of the taxpayer (BSA Sec 54 / IEA Sec 59).

Available when taxpayer is unable to determine the value of goods/services or the applicable rate of tax due to deficient information at the 'time of supply'. NOT a substitute for Advance Ruling.

1. Taxpayer makes application explaining why self-assessment is inaccurate and the time required to gather necessary information
2. Requests permission to make supplies on payment of tax on 'provisional' basis
3. Executes bond undertaking to discharge any shortfall with interest
4. Proper Officer grants permission; monitors finalization
5. Proceedings concluded within 6 months from order date (extendable to 4 years on sufficient cause)

Scrutiny is NOT a linear comparison of data. Scrutiny is where there is an incongruity between (i) returns filed and (ii) information in possession — not mere suspicion. Proper Officer can only demand 'explanation' — cannot call for books and records or hold personal hearing to resolve unsatisfactory explanation.

• Differences in credit appearing in GSTR-2A vs that availed in GSTR-3B (Illustration 38)
• Discrepancy between output tax declared in GSTR-1 vs GSTR-3B

• Non-payment of GST on reverse charge during entire year — this is 'suspicion' not 'discrepancy' (Illustration 39)
• Calling for ITC register to verify Rule 42 reversal — implies insufficient information; use Section 65
• Excess credit build-up, inadequate reversal, output tax objection — these are audit territory (Sec 65) or inquiry (Sec 67)

• GSTR-3A Notice issued via portal → 15 days to file
• If still not filed → Proper Officer passes Order in FORM ASMT-13 + DRC-07 summary on best judgement basis
• Guidance in Circular 129/48/2019-GST dated 24 Dec 2019
• Remedy: File 'valid returns' within 60 days — Order automatically withdrawn. If still not filed: further 60 days with ₹100/day additional late fee
• If returns filed but after time limit — demand remains and goes into recovery unless appeal succeeds
• Burden on Revenue is very limited — can only be challenged if it "shocks the conscience of a reasonable person"

• Notice in ASMT-14 + DRC-01 summary when person was previously registered (cancelled under Sec 29(2)) or was liable to register but did not
• Burden on Revenue = only show plausible liability to tax (much lower than Sec 73/74)
• Proper Officer cannot conduct investigation AFTER issuing ASMT-14 or demand new documents to drop this demand
• Reply time: 15 days → Order in ASMT-15 + DRC-07
• Taxpayer can seek withdrawal in ASMT-17 to JC who granted permission → accepted/declined in ASMT-18

Where a Proper Officer has 'evidence in possession' indicating liability not discharged by a Registered Person in a different jurisdiction, with previous permission of Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner, the Proper Officer can issue:

• Order in FORM GST ASMT-16 + DRC-07
• Taxpayer in different jurisdiction can seek withdrawal — apply in ASMT-17 to the JC who granted permission → ASMT-18

• Selection based on Commissioner's risk insights — taxpayer cannot request or excuse audit
• Desk audit possible without visiting premises. If premises visit needed → 15 days advance intimation mandatory in FORM ADT-01 — no element of surprise
• Information already on common portal CANNOT be requested from taxpayer via ADT-01
• 'Specially prepared' information (e.g., GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B reconciliation, computation prepared specifically for audit) is not to be demanded — unreliable and 'with prejudice'
• Only contemporaneously maintained information can be demanded
• Scope includes: correctness of turnover, taxes paid, refunds claimed, ITC availed, compliance verification

Inspection is permitted ONLY in matters involving evasion of tax — not to discover evasion but to validate matters of evasion already known. Pre-conditions for search:

1. Pre-authorization by Proper Officer not lower than Joint Commissioner
2. Authorization must be founded on material indicating evasion by: suppressing supply, suppressing stock, claiming excess credit, or contravening GST laws to evade tax

• Non-payment of tax (or excess ITC claim)
• Knowledge about liability to pay tax
• Non-disclosure or concealment of information
• Gains derived from indulging in these activities

Search requires additional element: goods/documents must be secreted to be seized. If not secreted, they cannot be seized. Section 67(10) allows taxpayer to raise questions as to legality of powers being exercised at the right time.

• Attachment of property (bank account or other property) — funds are encumbered, not taken away
• Applies ONLY when proceedings under Chapter XII, XIV and XV are underway
• Limited objections in FORM GST DRC-22A under Rule 159
• Not appealable under Sec 107 — must challenge via writ petition
• Automatically vacated: (a) at end of inquiry, or (b) when appeal is filed against proceedings, or (c) after 1 year — whichever is earlier

• Officer not below rank of Assistant Commissioner can block ITC if reasons to believe: supplier is non-existent, supply is non-existent, tax is non-existent (or not paid to Govt), recipient is non-existent, OR tax invoice is non-existent
• No prior notice or personal hearing — exceptional power; not adjudication
• Automatic unblocking within 1 year — ceases by operation of law (NZS Traders, Bombay HC, March 2026)
• Negative blocking is impermissible — can only block credit actually available in ECL, not future credit (Hemang Bipin Varaiya, Bombay HC, 2026; also Samay Alloys, Rawman Metal, Pilcon Infrastructure)
• Not appealable under Sec 107 — Section 121 bars appeal

• Clear statement of facts and allegations
• Evidence in support of the allegations — no demand based on suspicion
• Choice of actionable cause — Revenue must choose which violation is the basis (if multiple, must choose one)
• Quantum of demand of tax/ITC + interest + penalty

The active ingredient — fraud, wilful-misstatement or suppression — must be (i) deliberate and (ii) results in gain to the taxpayer. Indulging without gain = misunderstanding of law/mistaken assessment, NOT evasion. Revenue must prove all three special circumstances in addition to the demand itself.

Recovery is only possible when there is a 'final demand' crystallised by: (a) a demand based on due process of law AND (b) appeal dismissed or limitation to file appeal has passed. Any attempt at recovery before this = without authority of law.

• Payment by Registered Person via FORM GST DRC-03 challan (voluntary but irrevocable without refund application)
• Collection from bank via DRC-13 garnishee notice — after non-response within 7 days to Notice in DRC-01B (Rule 88C)

• Compilation or comparison of data available in GST portal and reports generated through it
• Information collected during audit (Sec 65)
• Exchange of information between Central and State authorities

• Information from other Government departments (Income Tax, SEBI, ED, Customs, SFIO)
• General issues in trade / roving enquiries
• Members lists from associations
• Audit of customer/suppliers
• Complaints of competitors, employees or others

Summons is an integral part of 'inquiry' — not 'enquiry' (Baleshwar Bagarti v. Bhagirathi Dass, 1909). Summons CANNOT be issued during Section 61 or Section 65 proceedings which are 'enquiry' not 'inquiry'. Only during Section 67, 129, 130 or proceedings leading to Sec 74/74A/76/132 — formal investigation — can summons be issued.

A reliable test: Who is exercising the power and under which section? If Proper Officer is under Sec 61 to 65 — they cannot issue summons under Sec 70. Only the Authorised Officer under Sec 67 (and proceedings under Sec 129/130/132) can issue summons.

• Summons is non-specific or vague with exhaustive list of documents — Section 160(2) bars taxpayers from entertaining improper Notice (roving inquiry)
• Documents not contemporaneously available in normal course of business are called for — decline in writing, stating so
• Officer is under Sec 61/65 and not under Sec 67 — challenge jurisdiction in writing
• Summons calls for preparation of new reports/statements specially — these lack reliability and are not within scope

Section 70(1A) makes it mandatory for person summoned to appear, at least, through an Authorized Person. This does NOT mean appearance in summons was optional earlier — it only permits an Authorized Person to appear on behalf of the person summoned.

• Where investigating Officer is of opinion that named person must appear — appearance by Authorized Person is NOT sufficient
• No vested right in this sub-section. If evidence can be given by Authorized Person based on official records, named person need not appear
• This sub-section does NOT encourage taxpayers to send CA as Authorized Person — CA has no role during investigation especially on business transactions authored by taxpayer
• Authorized Person appearing must be person in charge of duties involving the matter of inquiry — evidence based on official records, not personal knowledge of the CA

• Progress from admitted facts → transactions under investigation → admission of ingredients of offence
• Questions are simple, straight-forward, short, fact-based (existence/absence of facts)
• Deponent's statements expressing opinion (about GST classification, taxability) are not considered valuable — facts only
• Logical sequence: CA's opinion on HSN classification or time of supply is NOT admissible as competent evidence from a deponent

• Statements made on oath are admissible per Barkat Ram (AIR 1962 SC) and Tofan Singh v. State of TN (2020)
• Statements are 'voidable' proof — a means of collecting information, not perfect evidence
• Statements on oath are NOT ipso facto reliable unless there is no dispute or challenge to the averments
• Courts can doubt statements even when not retracted — especially when circumstances surrounding recording are questionable
• BSA Sec 53 / IEA Sec 58: Undisputed facts need not be proved — allegation left undisputed becomes admitted fact

• SCN CANNOT be issued solely on the foundation of statements recorded — motive of deponent, unfavourable relations, and other factors are open to challenge
• SCN must be supported by 'clinching evidence' led out of statements recorded — not standing merely on statements
• Examine carefully: to what extent do statements support the allegations? Is other corroborative evidence on record?

• Where copy of statement provided — write to Proper Officer after verifying in calmer circumstances if there are misstatements to clarify
• Where copy NOT provided — request copy and then clarify misstatements
• Where complete withdrawal required — write to Proper Officer stating (a) statement is withdrawn, (b) no reliance to be placed on it, (c) provide corrected factual position

Delay in retracting may raise presumption of reliability in Revenue's favour — but not necessarily so when: circumstances of recording are not intimidating, other evidence corroborates, or third-party deponents have unfriendly relations with taxpayer.

• Inducement or threat at work during recording
• Misunderstanding or mistake by recording officer
• Deponent unfriendly to taxpayer — vindictive motivation
• Anxiety and stress surrounding investigation proceedings

Wrong facts or wrong understanding of facts is a major reason for setback in litigation. The representative must:

• Understand all factual aspects that need clarity — e.g., for ocean freight refund dispute: review relevant contracts, invoices, incoterms
• Collate facts from necessary documentation AND after discussing with relevant personnel
• Take all facts in writing (email) and obtain confirmation — prevents new facts troubling litigation strategy later

• Facts already on record in Notice: taken on record and dealt with
• Facts not in Notice but relevant: evaluate whether inclusion would advance or prejudice taxpayer's interests before introducing
• Facts in Notice that are wrong/discrepant: discrepancies in Revenue's factual position can shake the validity of the Notice from its foundation

Legal provisions are dynamic — frequent notifications, amendments and circulars. Revenue may invoke wrong provisions or provisions not applicable to the period in dispute.

• Wrong section invoked — Sec 73 used when extended period requires Sec 74, or vice versa
• Notice asking for information rather than providing a clear allegation
• PAN-level data from balance sheet used without validating linkage with GSTIN
• More than one cause-of-action exists but Revenue invoked one — when 'A' is chosen, 'B' is abandoned; reply is then structured around the chosen cause only
• Defects in a Notice can be fatal to the demand if incurable — attempt to cure may render adjudication illegal

Litigation strategy applies at two stages: (i) when taking a tax position and (ii) when facing departmental action.

• Jurisdiction of proceedings — verify Circulars 31/5/2018-GST, 169/1/2022-GST, 239/33/2024-GST + state jurisdiction circulars
• Validity of Notice: correct cause-of-action, correct provisions, clear non-vague allegation
• Merits of the case and whether statutory provisions support client's position
• Existence of evidence supporting Revenue's allegations
• Whether interpretation is backed by precedent decisions — jurisdiction of those decisions
• Impact of losing: tax + interest + penalty + future year ramifications + other GSTINs + group companies
• Benefits of accepting demand pre-notice — Sec 73(5)/74(5)/74A(8)(i) — NIL or 15% penalty
• Opportunity of concessional penalty post-notice under Sec 73(8)/74(8)/74A(8)(ii)
• Availability of ITC to buyer/recipient if demand is accepted and tax paid — Sec 34 + 17(5)(i)
• Revenue neutral situations — IGST paid instead of CGST+SGST → Sec 77 refund + correct payment
• Cost of litigation vs probability of success at each forum
• Impact on other existing litigations and tax positions under allied statutes
• Presence of grounds to counter fraud/mens rea allegation under Sec 74/74A/122

There is no express provision in GST to make payments 'under protest'. There is also no provision for pre-deposit more than prescribed for filing appeals. However, the right to litigate after making payment of taxes under protest appears to be a constitutional right of taxpayers — no specific enabling provision required.

• Could reduce interest burden if outcome is unfavourable — interest limited to date of payment under protest
• GST law jettisoned this practice deliberately — making self-assessment real and complete
• Amount deposited in Cash Ledger will not be accepted as discharge of liability unless through proper proceedings
• Balance in Credit Ledger will only excuse interest (on reversal) — not discharge liability
• Payment via DRC-03 challan + 'intimation' to Proper Officer: Proper Officer is NOT obligated to 'accept' such intimation under any statutory provision

Section 128A provides waiver of interest and penalty for initial GST years under conditions. Consider opting when:

• Case has lesser chances of being resolved favourably in further litigation
• Cost of further litigation exceeds possible demand relief
• Demand is predominantly interest and penalty with nil or negligible tax

• For Sec 73 Notices: Tax payment deadline already passed on March 31, 2025
• For Sec 74 Notices converted to Sec 73 by Appellate Forum: Benefit can still be availed upon adjudicating authority passing the effect Order after appellate order conversion

The date of receipt of SCN starts the 30-day reply clock and the 3-month appeal limitation from the Order. Document this date without fail: email printout, portal screenshot, photocopy of postal cover — preserve in file.

• If SCN date ≠ portal upload date → use the later date (usually portal upload) as date of receipt
• Reply to SCN addressed to: Executive Commissionerate Proper Officer — even if SCN issued by DGGI/Audit Commissionerate
• If more time needed: write to officer seeking extension BEFORE deadline

• Order confirms demand on different classification/grounds from those alleged in SCN — violates Sec 75(7), fatal and incurable
• Interest demanded on transitional credit availed and reversed — Rule 121 cannot supply missing authority under Sec 73/74
• SCN asking for information without clear allegation or PAN-level data used without GSTIN validation
• Notice asking for non-payment of tax on difference between financial statements revenue vs GSTR-9C — PAN vs GSTIN mismatch (Illustration 50)
• Demand raised based on suspicion (ITC build-up, inadequate reversal) through scrutiny route — incorrect provision

1. Background: Brief profile of assessee, nature of business, context of SCN (audit/investigation/scrutiny)
2. Issues: Amount proposed, period, provisions invoked
3. Preliminary Objections: Jurisdiction, authority, timing, valid service, vagueness, defects (if any) — address BEFORE merits
4. Reply to Each Allegation: Accept or clearly reject + evidence in support + interpretation backed by circulars/decisions + corroborative materials
5. Limitation Defence: If extended period invoked — challenge evidence of fraud/wilful misstatement/suppression; cite decisions
6. Penalty Reply: Challenge penalty with decisions; cite bona fide interpretation if applicable
7. Prayer: (a) Drop proceedings, (b) Opportunity of personal hearing, (c) Specific reliefs prayed

Key Principle from Chapter: Reply to Notice is NOT to "prove innocence" — it is to expose the failure of "proof of guilt" in the Notice. Taxpayer needs to 'accept' or 'reject' allegations, not justify positions. If prima facie case has NOT been made out — nothing further need be done; let Authority show how allegation is proved. If prima facie case IS made out — introduce rebuttal evidence to impeach it.

1. Obtain copy of Order with proof of date of service (not date of Order) — enters the limitation period
2. Summarise the Order: break up demands confirmed vs demands dropped, refunds rejected
3. Advise client on options — including time limit and pre-deposit amount required
4. Calculate pre-deposit: undisputed in full + 10% of disputed tax (Sec 107) or additional 10% for GSTAT (Sec 112)
5. Select proper form (APL-01 for First Appeal, APL-05 for GSTAT); file in correct jurisdiction

• APL-01 before Commissioner Appeals: 2 sets — indexed, paged, stitched booklet format
• APL-05 before GSTAT: 4 sets — indexed, paged, stitched booklet format
• One copy of Order impugned signed as TRUE COPY
• Verification completed properly and signed by authorised person

Being "unhappy" with an Order ≠ being "aggrieved" by it. Wrong reasons to file appeal:

• Taxpayer cannot afford to bear the demand
• Demand cannot be passed on to earlier customers to recoup incidence
• Taxpayer dislikes the basis on which demand is confirmed
• The common portal permits filing

An appeal qualifies where the Order is:

• Based on erroneous understanding of facts while arriving at tax treatment
• Based on erroneous application of law to extant facts
• Based on erroneous application of law to facts understood erroneously
• Contrary to judicial decisions and executive instructions (binding on adjudicating authority)

• Non-payment or shortfall VOIDS the appeal entirely
• Pre-deposit via FORM GST APL-01 (first appeal) or APL-05 (GSTAT) — not via DRC-03 directly
• Involuntary DRC-03 payments: file DRC-03A to apply against demand in Electronic Liability Ledger (Circular 224/18/2024-GST dated 11 Jul 2024)
• Section 129 penalty paid in MOV-09 = sufficient compliance for appeal admission — no separate deposit required
• Exorbitant demand where pre-deposit is not feasible → analyze factors leading to exorbitant amount; consider writ petition

Words in Sec 107(6) and 112(8) are clear: "No appeal shall be filed……unless…." — mandatory, not directory.

Section 121 lists decisions/Orders that are non-appealable — legislative will, and there is no occasion to object to finality in these matters. These relate to interim administrative powers (not final demands), so the balance is well-founded.

• Provisional attachment under Section 83 — NOT appealable
• Pre-emptive blocking of credit under Rule 86A — NOT appealable
• Early recovery action under proviso to Section 78 — NOT appealable
• Permission/denial under Section 63 — NOT appealable

Grounds form the basis on which the outcome is found unacceptable. Grounds are the lens through which the Appellate Authority is requested to view the adjudication Order. Arguments are built on the grounds. Grounds not urged cannot be argued at hearing.

Stare decisis — in like circumstances, treatment of law must be alike. Decided cases have precedent value so that when facts are similar the treatment is not dissimilar.

• Caselaw is relevant ONLY after the grounds have been argued — not as a substitute for independent reasoning
• Test for RELEVANCE: substantial coverage of the facts AND the statute interpreted in that case
• Test for BINDING: jurisdiction of the authority rendering the decision
• AP HC decision is binding in Karnataka courts ONLY when there is no Karnataka HC decision on that point. If contrary Karnataka HC decision exists — AP HC decision has no even persuasive value in Karnataka.
• Decisions of CESTAT, ITAT, state tribunals — persuasive, not binding, but frequently relied upon

• "A caselaw for every word" — dangerous habit. Between filing and hearing, the relied-upon case may be overturned
• If caselaw formed the basis of grounds and it gets overruled — appellant is left without grounds at hearing
• Decisions rendered sub silentio (without arguments) or per incuriam (without considering relevant precedents) can be distinguished or referred for review
• Adverse caselaw: may be distinguished on facts, or referred for review if rendered sub silentio or per incuriam

• Only days of delay beyond the limitation need be explained — taxpayer is NOT obligated to explain what was going on during the statutory limitation period
• First date of 'misadventure' causing delay must be before the last date of limitation — and may run continuously through the delay
• Merits of the case are irrelevant while explaining delay
• Lapse of limitation gives the counter-party a vested right that cannot be lightly disturbed
• A series of bona fide reasons running one after another may add up to explain entire duration of delay — without a single day unexplained

• Medical certificate should state: (a) date of first presentation, (b) brief listing of symptoms, (c) diagnosis and treatment, (d) duration of care advised
• Proprietor's affidavit alone insufficient — requires corroborating doctor's certificate
• Condonation is discretionary, not a right — even meritorious cases can be dismissed for fatal delay

• Central appeal filed before State forum or deputy commissioner instead of commissioner — not fatal
• FAA must return/redirect appeal to correct forum; time spent in reaching correct forum cannot impair remedy
• HOWEVER: filing before completely unintelligible forum (e.g., CESTAT for GST) — not protected
• Key cases: Orient Syntex Ltd., Zafarullah, Singh Enterprises v. CCE (2008) — "limitation ends all proceedings"

Columns 7 and 16 of FORM GST APL-01 highlight the special emphasis given to 'date of service' of Order. Taxpayer must NOT declare 'date of Order' as 'date of service.'

• Section 169 provides several modes of service — choice of mode is the Proper Officer's decision
• Date of service determines: (a) start of 3-month limitation, (b) start of revenue's 6-month period, (c) date for computing pre-deposit calculation
• Recent decisions: Elanco India (P) Ltd. v. ETO (2024), Sahulhammed v. CTO, Poomika Infra Developers v. STO, Axiom Gen Nxt India v. CTO (2025) — exposed jurisdictional questions on service awaiting authoritative resolution

Four factors that make an Order 'prejudicial' and enable revision: (i) illegal, (ii) improper, (iii) omitted to consider material facts, or (iv) CAG observations. Election of one factor operates as rejection of the other three — imprecision in election is a basis to challenge validity of revisionary proceedings.

• Commissioner or delegate — Joint Commissioner/Additional Commissioner for Orders by Deputy/Asst. Commissioner/Superintendent
• Additional Commissioner CANNOT revise Orders of First Appellate Authority (Joint/Additional Commissioner) — co-extensive rank, not subordinate
• Fatal errors in identifying 'Proper Officer' for revision are known to occur

No adverse consequence proceeding without first 'putting at notice' the taxpayer. RVN-01 Notice must address:

1. Jurisdiction (which specific factor of the four makes this exercisable)
2. Area of prejudice (how Revenue is harmed by this specific Order)
3. Evidence or material to support claim of prejudice
4. Proposed action (to overturn which parts of the impugned Order)
5. Opportunity to reply

Defective RVN-01 = entire proceedings are void. Section 160 of CGST Act — whether defective Notice left undisputed/replied on merits is 'with prejudice' is an open legal question; but the safer approach is to challenge defects upfront.

• Stage 1: Staying the operation of the impugned Order — important to prevent it from operating as precedent for subsequent tax periods
• Stage 2: Putting taxpayer at notice to answer the proposal to overturn the impugned Order

"Further inquiry as may be necessary" does NOT permit a second round of original proceedings. Tests for scope of RVN-01:

• Does RVN-01 call for new information or material? → Expansion = impermissible
• Does RVN-01 canvass a more accurate interpretation based on existing material? → Permissible

• Changing HSN code to fasten a new demand (not alleged in original proceedings)
• Rejecting or doubting evidentiary material already taken on record and relied upon in original proceedings
• Introducing different criteria to arrive at time or place of supply to support demand
• Introducing new facts that were not part of the original proceedings

• Cannot start: BEFORE appeal limitation under Sec 107/112/117/118 has lapsed
• Cannot start: AFTER 3 years from the date of the impugned Order
• Section 108(4): Limitation extended indefinitely when similar issue is pending in another taxpayer's case — creates significant uncertainty for all taxpayers with favourable Orders in related issues

• Revisionary proceedings may impugn the adjudication Order OR the Order-in-Appeal
• Where Order-in-Appeal is impugned — the adjudication Order (underlying it) is NOT impugned, even though it appears on record
• Taxpayer must not confuse: limitation for revision does NOT start from adjudication Order when OIA is the impugned Order

• Identify: appeal on (i) validity of jurisdiction, or (ii) findings, or (iii) both
• Jurisdiction challenge is MORE effective than re-arguing merits at GSTAT
• Consider prayer: remand with directions to which authority? Or outright reversal?
• GSTAT's power of remand may send matter back to Revisionary Authority — consider if that is desirable
• Appeals to High Court (Sec 117) / SC (Sec 118) from GSTAT orders on revisionary issues involve substantial questions of law about jurisdiction

By its very nature, investigation is secretive. Correspondence from investigating authorities is generally brief and seeks documents/records. Refusing to supply information attracts punitive provisions — but inability to prepare new information not ordinarily available is expressly permitted.

• Provisions of law that authorize the said investigation
• Authority (officer) empowered to conduct the investigation
• Jurisdiction of said authority over the assessee
• Nature of information called for and time permitted to supply

• Not conducted with proper authorizations from JC or above
• Officers use coercion, harassment or mental abuse
• Not witnessed by witnesses of nearby area
• Female officers not present when a female is to be searched
• Conducted after business hours
• Statements recorded during investigation (before formal summons/inquiry)
• Instantly after investigation, taxpayer receives DRC-01A intimation
• Access to SAP/ERP sought by rejecting extracts taken thereof
• Panchnama signed under pressure or not depicting true events
• Authorisation for one place/person used to conduct investigation at another place/person

Audit scope bifurcates into two parts:

Contractual arrangements are inquired into. Restrict information to words from contracts/tax positions — avoid sweeping descriptions that can be misinterpreted.

Date and time of tax payments and disclosures to Department. Confine responses to computations and reconciliations — clear references to source of each value are beneficial. Textual explanations allow room for misunderstanding.

• State department has not issued proper notifications empowering audit teams to access premises
• Audit conducted by CAG under GST (not permissible as departmental audit)
• Same issues of coercion/harassment/lack of authorization as in investigation

Before drafting the reply, determine: Has a prima facie case been made out or not?

Reply to Notice structure (Section components):

• Background facts relating to the noticee
• Identification of facts and facts-in-issue to point to the purpose of the SCN
• Preliminary objections concerning the SCN (authority, jurisdiction, timing, valid service)
• Clear statement of acceptance or rejection of each para forming the issues — with arguments, corroborative/rebuttal evidence and decisions
• Alternative plea if applicable
• Prayer: relief sought + opportunity for personal hearing

• Evidence not admitted but ought to have been considered (even if rejected on merits)
• Could not be introduced earlier due to sufficient cause
• Pertains to any ground of appeal and sufficient cause shown
• Sufficient opportunity not made available in earlier proceedings

Courts have allowed additional bona fide grounds if omitted at time of filing and prima facie could not have been urged in the appeal itself. Suitable opportunity given to respondents to consider and prepare rebuttal. Refer Rules 31 and 45 of GSTAT (Procedure) Rules 2025.

Caustic remarks: However much the Order may cause grief, there is no justification for making caustic remarks against the authority in appellate submissions. Professional demeanour throughout.

If the authorised representative's professional body prescribes a dress code (e.g., ICAI uniform), that shall apply instead. Dress code in Rules 77 and 122 of GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025.

• Address as 'Sir' or any respectful customary salutation
• Be courteous — this does not mean reverence; loyalty is to the law, not the officer

• Meet Court Master before Tribunal commences — politely inform of presence; meet Departmental Representatives too
• File letter of authorization with Court Master if not filed earlier
• Address Members of Bench as 'My Lord' or 'Your Honour'
• Stand whenever Members enter or leave the courtroom; bow your head to acknowledge them
• Parties must remain quiet — do not disturb hearing; interrupting = potential contempt of Court

• Smoking, eating, drinking or chewing gum — strictly NOT permitted
• Audio/video recording or photography — NOT allowed
• Mobile phone usage — PROHIBITED
• Children under age 14 — not allowed unless giving evidence or with Court's prior approval
• Do not sit with crossed legs — may be taken as disrespectful to authorities

• Question of law no longer res integra — already decided by Apex Court or high authority (Illustration 69)
• High financial stakes — blockage of working capital due to refund rejection or periodical notices
• Imminent threat — statutory timeframes for further action

• No general time limitation on arguments — but value the Bench's time; be precise and adequate as context requires
• Additional grounds to be urged → file amendment application first; respondents given opportunity to file objections; if allowed then argue during disposal
• Address Bench as 'Your Honour'
• Speak slowly, softly and clearly — calm and persuasive voice exudes confidence and commands attention
• Do NOT use artificial accent — makes it difficult for Bench to register submissions
• If bench is distracted/annoyed — skilfully and courteously redirect their attention (Illustration 79)

• Where respondent is presenting — allow completion before intervening; seek Bench's permission before countering
• Own your mistakes: "Pardon me" — state it was inadvertent and reassure it will not recur; never defend a mistake
• When matter posted to another date — record that date yourself; do not wait for Notice from Bench
• When matter is heard partly — summarise previous hearing's submissions before proceeding with fresh submissions
• When compliance (pre-deposit, evidence) required by Bench — complete it before appointed date

• Read the summary of the record of personal appearance and sign it as acknowledgement
• Carry a copy and retain as record of adjudicating proceedings — relevant in future proceedings
• If further submissions/evidence needed after hearing discussions — seek leave from authority and file within agreed time

• Ensure registry sends official copy of Order to the address mentioned in memorandum of appeal
• If picked up in person — write date of receipt on Order and initial it
• File synopsis of facts and submissions during final hearing — especially when issues are complex and no direct precedents are available
• Compilation of all relied-upon documents with proper indexation and adequate copies for all Members and the respondent

Any person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 107 or Section 108 (or State/UT GST Act equivalent) may appeal to GSTAT within three months from the date of communication of the order, or the date notified by Government, whichever is later.

The staggered filing schedule (Order No. GSTAT/Pr.Bench/Portal/125/25-26 dated September 24, 2025) required appeals to be filed in batches based on date of underlying APL-01/03/RVN-01. However, via Order No. 315/2025 dated December 16, 2025, the staggered schedule was dispensed with — all appeals can now be filed at GSTAT with effect from December 18, 2025, irrespective of the date of the underlying order.

The Commissioner concerned is the respondent — NOT the Appellate Authority who passed the OIA. Each respondent may file a reply to the petition. Upon submission of this reply, Bench may allow appellant to file a rejoinder.

APL-05 must contain soft copies of: (1) Show Cause Notice, (2) Order-in-Original (OIO), (3) Order-in-Appeal (OIA), (4) Statement of Facts, (5) Grounds of Appeal. If appellant attaches scanned copy of certified OIO/OIA and scrutiny officer is satisfied from endorsement that it is a certified copy — no further defects should be raised.

GSTAT (Procedure) Rules 2025 travel beyond CGST Rules 2017 at multiple places. Section 111 of CGST Act — Appellate Tribunal has power to regulate its own procedure, but subject to provisions of CGST Act and Rules made thereunder.