The GST Practitioners are facing various issues while filing of Appeal on GSTAT Portal and also various issues relating to GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025.
- Mandatory “First Appeal” Undertaking on GST Portal May Bar Genuine Appeals
While entering the ARN/CRN of the impugned order on the GST portal, the system does not allow the appellant to proceed further unless an undertaking is submitted. The undertaking requires a declaration that the appeal being filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) is the first appeal against the impugned order, and that no appeal or writ has been filed earlier, nor is any such matter pending before any other legal forum, including the High Court or the Supreme Court.
It may not always be possible for an appellant to give the required undertaking. However, without submitting this undertaking, the GST portal does not allow the appellant to proceed with filing the appeal.
For instance, in the absence of the GST Appellate Tribunal, a taxpayer may have filed a writ petition before the High Court against the order of the Appellate Authority. After the constitution of the Tribunal, if the High Court remands or transfers the matter back for filing before the Tribunal, the appellant would be unable to give the undertaking that no appeal or writ was previously filed.
In such cases, the mandatory undertaking becomes a hindrance and may either prevent the appellant from filing the appeal altogether or compel the appellant to make an incorrect declaration merely to complete the filing process.
Therefore, the undertaking be suitably amended so that it serves its intended purpose while ensuring that taxpayers are not forced to submit an incorrect or misleading declaration.
- Clarification Sought on Filling “Case Details” Tab in APL-05 Portal
The APL-05 portal mandates filling three fields—(i) Grounds of Appeal (brief), (ii) Brief Issue under Dispute, and (iii) Prayer—each limited to 2000 characters, with an option to upload detailed documents.
However, clarity is sought on whether:
A. If these details are already contained in the appeal memo or statement of facts, the appellant can simply refer to the relevant paragraphs (e.g., “As per Para ___ of Appeal Draft”); or
B. If direct text is not entered in the portal fields, whether a separate document (other than the appeal draft) must necessarily be uploaded covering these details.
- Clarification Sought on Mandatory Fields and Data Requirements in GSTAT Appeal Portal
The clarification has been sought on several practical difficulties arising from mandatory fields on the GSTAT appeal portal, particularly under “Category of Case”, GST Section, and GST Rule. In many cases, adjudication orders do not mention specific sections or rules, yet the portal compels appellants to select them, effectively forcing them to fill gaps not present in the order itself. This may result in inconsistencies and undermine the very grounds of appeal.
Further, the portal format deviates from Form APL-05 prescribed under the Rules, which requires details such as HSN or notification number for certain disputes, whereas the portal only allows selection of GST sections and rules. This misalignment creates confusion, especially in cases involving misclassification, incorrect notification applicability, or multiple issues arising from a single order.
Clarification is also sought on how to report multiple issues, case summaries, and grounds of appeal within strict character limits, including whether cross-referencing the appeal memo is sufficient or if separate documents must be uploaded.
Additionally, mandatory fields under “About Appellant” and “Case History” duplicate information already available on the GST portal or contained in appeal documents, leading to unnecessary repetition. It is requested that such details be auto-populated and that flexibility be provided where documents lack online reference numbers.
An early and comprehensive clarification is requested to ensure procedural compliance, avoid duplication, and facilitate smooth filing of appeals in line with GSTAT (Procedure) Rules.
- GST Appeal Portal Restricts Filing Steps Until Payment, Causing Procedural Hardship
The GST appeal portal does not allow access to the “Upload Documents,” “Checklist,” and “Final Preview” tabs unless payment details are updated. This restriction creates unintended hardship, as authorized representatives may wish to complete documentation and verification even when payment is pending. The checklist is detailed, multiple attachments are required, and denying access until payment hinders ease of filing. Allowing document upload and final preview before payment would help taxpayers prepare error-free appeals, with the payment check imposed only at the final submission stage.
- Reconsideration of Fees Prescribed for Interlocutory Applications and Inspection of Records under the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025
High and legally inconsistent fees prescribed for filing interlocutory applications—such as stay, rectification of order, condonation of delay, early hearing, or extension of time—in pending matters before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), and for inspection of records.
Rule 29 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 mandates that every interlocutory application for stay, directions, rectification of order, condonation of delay, early hearing, exemption from production of copy of the order appealed against, or extension of time in pending matters must be filed in the prescribed GSTAT FORM-01 along with an affidavit.
Further, Rule 119(2) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 provides that fees as prescribed in the Schedule of Fees shall be payable for every interlocutory application.
As a consequence, even routine and procedural applications—such as early hearing or extension of time in pending matters—are treated as “interlocutory applications” and are required to be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5,000 per application.
Excessive burden for procedural applications
Applications for early hearing or extension of time are often necessitated by practical or administrative constraints and do not involve adjudication on merits. Levying a fee of Rs. 5,000 for each such application appears excessive and may act as a deterrent to seeking procedural reliefs essential for effective access to justice.
Unequal treatment between taxpayers and the department
No fee is payable on any petition, application, or reference filed by a departmental authority in connection with a matter before the Appellate Tribunal. This creates an imbalance, placing an additional financial burden solely on taxpayers.
Conflict with the CGST Rules, 2017 on rectification applications
The proviso to Rule 110(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 explicitly provides that no fee shall be payable for an application made before the Appellate Tribunal for rectification of errors referred to in sub-section (10) of section 112 of the CGST Act.
However, Rule 29 read with the Schedule of Fees under the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 requires payment of Rs. 5,000 even for rectification applications, which appears to go beyond—and be inconsistent with—the parent CGST Rules.
Introduction of inspection fees contrary to past practice
Under the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, no fee was charged for inspection of records of a pending appeal or application by a party to the proceedings. In contrast, Rule 67 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 prescribes a fee of Rs. 5,000 for inspection of records, introducing a new financial barrier without precedent under the earlier appellate framework.
The fee of Rs. 5,000 prescribed for certain interlocutory applications—particularly applications for early hearing and extension of time in pending matters—requires urgent reconsideration and rationalisation.
Applications for rectification of orders should be expressly exempted from fees, in line with the proviso to Rule 110(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Levy of inspection fees should be reviewed, keeping in mind the long-standing practice under the CESTAT regime where no such fee was charged.
A more balanced and reasonable fee structure would ensure procedural fairness, reduce unnecessary litigation costs, and promote effective access to justice before the GST Appellate Tribunal.
- GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 Create Conflict on Certified Copy Requirement, Diluting Ease of Filing GST Appeals
Rule 21(1) and (2) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 prescribe a mandatory requirement of filing a certified copy of the impugned order for appeals before GSTAT, without distinguishing whether the order is uploaded on the GST portal. This departs from Rule 110(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which permits filing of appeals based on provisional acknowledgement and allows submission of a self-certified copy where the order is not uploaded online, while treating the provisional acknowledgement date as the date of filing.
Under Rule 110(4), whether the order is uploaded on the portal or not, the date of provisional acknowledgement governs limitation. However, Rule 21(2) of the GSTAT Rules links issuance of final acknowledgement—and effectively completion of filing—to submission of a certified copy, thereby altering the statutory scheme and potentially affecting limitation.
Although an office order provides limited relief by exempting digitally generated GSTN documents from certification, scanned physical documents still require certification. This reintroduces procedural hurdles that had earlier led to extensive litigation.
Recent High Court rulings, including Vishwa Enterprise v. State of Gujarat and Aditya Madaan v. Commissioner CGST, have held that orders uploaded on the GST portal carry a presumption of authenticity and do not require physical signatures. In light of these rulings and past amendments aimed at easing compliance, it is respectfully requested that the requirement of certified copies under Rule 21 be reconsidered or suitably clarified to avoid reviving avoidable procedural disputes.
- Multiple Certifications under GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025
The GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 require multiple certifications, attestations, and verifications for the same set of documents under different rules. The key provisions are summarised below:
- Rule 22: Every appeal or pleading must be signed and verified by the concerned party as per the Rules.
- Rule 20(3): Every appeal, application, or cross-objection must be signed and verified by the appellant/respondent or their authorised representative.
- Rule 20(3) (Documents): Documents filed before the Tribunal must be certified as true copies by the party or authorised representative.
- Rule 21(1): Appeals must be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order, verified by the authorised representative.
- Rule 22: The name and signature of the authorised representative must appear at the foot of every appeal, pleading, and all relied-upon documents.
These requirements are in addition to Rule 110(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which mandates submission of a self-certified copy of the order where the order is not uploaded on the common portal.
An anomaly arises as Rule 22 mandates the authorised representative’s signature on all documents, while only requiring the party concerned to sign the appeal or pleading. This also raises practical concerns where the authorised representative changes during proceedings.
Given that appeals are digitally filed through the taxpayer’s User ID, the process can be simplified to align with the objective of speedy justice and procedural efficiency.
A single, consolidated verification by the appellant for all documents would suffice and significantly reduce duplication, without compromising authenticity.
- Rule 45 of GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025: A Restrictive Approach to Additional Evidence Needs Reconsideration
Rule 45(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 places a general bar on producing additional evidence before the Appellate Tribunal, permitting it only in limited situations at the Tribunal’s discretion, such as when necessary to pass orders or where adequate opportunity to adduce evidence was denied earlier.
In contrast, Rule 112 of the CGST Rules, 2017 allows additional evidence in wider circumstances, including cases where relevant evidence was wrongly refused, or the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such evidence at earlier stages. The only common ground between the two rules is denial of sufficient opportunity by the lower authority.
Given this disparity, Rule 45 is narrower in scope than Rule 112, despite both addressing the same issue. It is therefore submitted that Rule 45 should be broadened and aligned with Rule 112 to uphold principles of natural justice and to remove inconsistency with the CGST Act and Rules, to which the GSTAT Procedure Rules remain subject.
- Call to Rationalise GSTAT Rules on Change of Authorised Representative and Right of Parties to Be Heard
A request has been made to reconsider certain provisions of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 relating to authorised representatives (A/Rs). Concerns have been raised that Rule 73 prescribes an overly stringent process for changing an A/R, requiring consent of the existing representative or Tribunal permission after service of application, which may cause delays and unnecessary procedural complications.
It has also been pointed out that Rule 22 mandates the name and signature of the authorised representative on every appeal and all relied-upon documents, a requirement that merits reconsideration, as the appellant’s signature should suffice.
Further, Rule 75 empowers the Tribunal to restrict a party from making submissions if an authorised representative has been engaged, which is seen as limiting the litigant’s right to be heard.
In contrast, the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 adopted a more flexible approach, leaving change of authorised representative largely to the litigant’s discretion without insisting on a no-objection certificate, except in exceptional cases.
It is therefore requested that these provisions be revisited to avoid procedural delays, ensure litigant autonomy, and align GSTAT procedures with established tribunal practices.
- Scope of “Place of Supply” Disputes and Mandatory Reference to GST Principal Bench
Under Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017, any appeal involving an issue relating to place of supply must be heard by the GST Appellate Tribunal’s Principal Bench. Clarification is sought on whether a “place of supply” issue is limited only to misclassification of inter-State supply as intra-State (or vice versa), or whether it also covers cases where the wrong Stateis identified in an inter-State supply. Further, the question arises whether the mere presence of any ground— even an alternative ground and involving a minor amount—relating to place of supply in an appeal would mandate that the entire appeal be heard exclusively by the Principal Bench.
