The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Kolkata Bench, has allowed 21 Interlocutory Applications seeking priority hearing of appeals involving substantial statutory refund claims, holding that continued pendency of the appeals could cause significant financial prejudice to the applicant.

The Bench of S.G. Chattopadhyay (Judicial Member) and Bijoy Kumar Kar (Technical Member) has observed, “We have gone through the contents of the Interlocutory Applications. The appellants have claimed that they are entitled to statutory refund which have been denied to them by the respondent (the Revenue hereafter) for reasons which are untenable in the eye of Law. The Authorized Representative of the applicant have taken us to various judicial pronouncements covering the issue of refund. As discussed, the appellants have contended that if their Appeals claiming refund are not heard on priority basis, they are likely to suffer from huge financial loss.”

Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026

The principal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds warranting early hearing of its pending GST appeals, particularly when the appeals involved substantial refund claims and prolonged pendency was alleged to be causing financial prejudice.

The 21 appeals had been filed under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and the applicant approached the Tribunal through separate Interlocutory Applications seeking priority listing of those appeals.

The applicant contended that the appeals concerned refund amounts of substantial value and that continued pendency was likely to adversely affect its financial interests. It therefore requested the Tribunal to take up the appeals on a priority basis in the interests of justice.

The department did not object to the request for early hearing.

The departmental representatives submitted that they had no objection if the Tribunal considered it appropriate to grant priority hearing in view of the subject matter involved. However, the Revenue specifically reserved its right to contest the appeals on merits.

Accordingly, the department’s position was limited to the question of scheduling and did not constitute acceptance of the refund claims.

The Tribunal also examined whether the Interlocutory Applications complied with the applicable procedural requirements.

It recorded that each of the 21 applications was supported by an affidavit sworn by the authorised signatory of the applicant. The applications also contained the information prescribed in GSTAT Form-01 under Rule 29 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025.

The applicant had also relied upon various judicial pronouncements concerning the issue of refund and maintained that it was legally entitled to the statutory refunds allegedly denied by the Revenue.

After considering the submissions of both sides and examining the records, the Bench concluded that the applicant had established sufficient grounds for early hearing.

The Tribunal held that the applicants had made out a good case for early hearing and accordingly allowed all 21 Interlocutory Applications.

The Tribunal consequently directed that all 21 substantive appeals be listed together after three weeks.

The appeals relate to claims of statutory refund and will now be taken up together pursuant to the early-hearing order.

Importantly, the GSTAT order is confined to the question of early hearing. The Tribunal has not, through this order, finally determined the applicant’s entitlement to the disputed refund amounts.

The department has expressly retained its right to contest the appeals on merits. The substantive questions concerning the legality of the denial of refund and the applicant’s entitlement will therefore remain open for adjudication when the appeals are heard.

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.

Read More: Supreme Court Quashes GST S. 74 Notice Against Tata Steel