The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Division Bench has held that the appeal before it prima facie involves one or more questions of law, ruling that the matter cannot be placed before a Single Bench and must continue to be heard by a Division Bench.
The bench of Pradeep Kumar Vyas (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhushan Singh (Technical Member) clarified that the purpose of the present exercise was limited to determining whether the appeal involved questions of law and, if not, whether it could be assigned to a Single Bench.
The principal legal issue before GSTAT was whether the appeal raised one or more questions of law so as to require consideration by a Division Bench, or whether it fell within the category of appeals that could be heard by a Single Bench under Section 109(8) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 110A of the CGST Rules, 2017.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
The Tribunal examined the memorandum of appeal, the impugned order and the material available on record. Upon such scrutiny, the Bench recorded that it was prima facie satisfied that the appeal involves one or more questions of law.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the appeal does not fall within the category of matters that may be heard by a Single Bench.
GSTAT consequently directed that the appeal shall continue to be heard by the Division Bench.
The order does not decide the substantive GST dispute on merits. GSTAT’s present determination is confined to the appropriate Bench for hearing the appeal.
By finding that the appeal prima facie involves questions of law, the Tribunal has ensured that the substantive proceedings will continue before a Division Bench.
The specific questions of law and the merits of the underlying dispute are therefore yet to be considered in the subsequent proceedings.
The Bench also dealt with the appellant’s absence during the hearing.
No one appeared on behalf of the appellant, while the authorised representative for the respondent appeared before the Tribunal. The Registry had received an email stating that the appellant sought a virtual hearing on the date of fresh listing or adjournment.
However, the Tribunal noted that no application for virtual hearing or adjournment had been filed or uploaded on the GSTAT portal. The Bench further noted that no authorised representative had appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The Cause List had expressly indicated that the matter would be taken up for physical hearing.
In these circumstances, the Bench held that the email communication could not be treated either as a formal application for adjournment or as an appearance on behalf of the appellant.
Since there was no formal application and no appearance on behalf of the appellant, the Tribunal proceeded to examine the limited issue concerning Bench allocation on the basis of the memorandum of appeal, the impugned order and the material available on record.
This enabled the Bench to determine whether the appeal raised questions of law without postponing the preliminary determination regarding its appropriate Bench.
GSTAT has permitted the respondent, if it so desires, to file a reply and/or memorandum of cross-objections before the next hearing.
The matter has been listed for September 23, 2026, for consideration of the reply and/or memorandum of cross-objections, if any, and for further proceedings.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
