The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has directed Bharti Airtel Limited to produce corporate resolutions and other supporting documents establishing the authority of the person who signed and verified its GST appeal.
The GSTAT Division Bench observed that the question of whether the appeal had been validly instituted must be decided as a preliminary issue before the dispute could be considered on merits.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Pradeep Kumar Vyas and Technical Member Chandra Bhushan Singh passed the direction in an appeal filed by Bharti Airtel against the Commissioner of State GST and other authorities.
Buy Now: E-Way Bill Judgements From 2020–2026 [Includes Orders of GSTAT]
At the hearing, no one appeared for Bharti Airtel. Advocate Ashwin Mishra represented the respondent authorities.
Bharti Airtel Seeks Deferment of Proceedings
The Tribunal noted that a communication dated September 9, 2026, titled “Transfer of Appeal”, had been uploaded on behalf of Bharti Airtel and addressed to the Registrar.
Through the communication, the company informed the Tribunal that proceedings seeking the transfer or consolidation of similar appeals were pending before the Principal Bench in New Delhi. According to the company, those proceedings were registered as Transfer of Appeal No. 16 of 2026 and were scheduled to be heard on September 28, 2026.
Bharti Airtel consequently requested that proceedings in the present appeal be deferred.
However, the Division Bench found that the communication had not been filed as a formal application before it in accordance with the prescribed procedure. It therefore held that the communication could not be treated as a proper application for adjournment, stay or deferment.
State GST Department Questions Maintainability
Pursuant to an earlier order dated August 5, 2026, the respondent department filed its reply or counter-statement. It also submitted an interlocutory application challenging the maintainability of Bharti Airtel’s appeal.
The department raised a preliminary objection concerning the institution, signing and verification of the appeal on behalf of the company.
It contended that the Committee of Directors had not been shown to possess the necessary authority to issue the authorisation dated May 13, 2026. The department further argued that the authorisation did not specifically empower Kapil Lalwani to sign and verify the appeal.
Tribunal Finds Apparent Gaps in Authorisation
The GSTAT examined Form GST APL-05, the memorandum of appeal and the resolution or authorisation dated May 13, 2026, placed on record by Bharti Airtel.
The appeal had been signed and verified by Kapil Lalwani, who was described as “Manager-Finance” in the authorisation.
The Tribunal noted that although the document authorised specified officials to represent the company in connection with the filing of appeals and to undertake certain acts relating to taxation matters, clause (v) did not expressly authorise Lalwani to sign and verify an appeal.
The Bench also noticed discrepancies in the designation or capacity in which Lalwani had been described across the documents forming part of the appeal record.
Rules Require Proof of Authority to Sign Appeal
The Tribunal referred to Rule 110(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which requires an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal to be signed in the manner prescribed under Rule 26.
In the case of a company, Rule 26(2)(c) contemplates signing by the company’s chief executive officer or by an authorised signatory.
The Bench also relied on Rule 28 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025. The provision requires the production of an authorisation empowering the person signing or verifying an appeal on behalf of a party. It also permits the Tribunal to call for additional material to establish the person’s authority.
Against this statutory background, the Tribunal identified two preliminary questions.
The first is whether Bharti Airtel’s Committee of Directors was duly empowered to confer the authority contained in the resolution dated May 13, 2026.
The second is whether that resolution, when read in its entirety, empowered Lalwani to sign and verify Form GST APL-05, the memorandum of appeal and the accompanying pleadings on behalf of the company.
Maintainability to Be Decided Before Merits
The Tribunal observed that the objection went to the due institution and maintainability of the appeal. It was therefore required to be resolved before the company’s substantive challenge could be heard on merits.
Before deciding the objection, however, the Bench granted Bharti Airtel an opportunity to place the relevant corporate records on file.
The company has been directed to submit a corporate authorisation, resolution or other material specifically establishing Lalwani’s authority to sign and verify Form GST APL-05, the memorandum of appeal and the accompanying pleadings.
Bharti Airtel must also produce its relevant Articles of Association, board resolution, charter, delegation or other documents demonstrating that the Committee of Directors was authorised to issue the resolution dated May 13, 2026.
Further, the company has been asked to provide material establishing the basis on which Lalwani was claimed to be its authorised signatory under Rule 26(2)(c) of the CGST Rules on the date the appeal was filed.
The Tribunal has additionally sought an explanation for the different designations or capacities attributed to Lalwani in Form GST APL-05, the memorandum of appeal and the May 13 authorisation.
The respondent department has been granted liberty to file its response after the company produces the documents.
The preliminary objection concerning the institution, signing and verification of the appeal will be decided before the Tribunal takes up the dispute on merits.
The matter has been listed for December 11, 2026, for consideration of the preliminary issue and 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.
