The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), State Bench at Raipur, has held that a taxpayer cannot directly challenge an original adjudication order before the Tribunal while the first appeal against that order remains pending. A request for protection against recovery does not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal in the absence of an appealable appellate or revisional order.

The Division Bench of Pradeep Kumar Vyas (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhushan Singh (Technical Member) rejected the filing by assessee as not maintainable and declined its registration as a regular Tribunal appeal and expressly clarified that its decision did not determine the correctness of the demand, the merits of the pending first appeal or the legality of any recovery action.

Buy Now: 195+ ITC Judgements Along With GSTAT Rulings – 2017 To 2026

The original adjudication order was passed under Section 73(9) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Dhamtari Circle.

The signed adjudication order was dated December 29, 2023, while the associated demand reference bore the date December 30, 2023. It recorded tax of ₹2,42,266, interest of ₹2,40,449 and penalty of ₹24,227, aggregating to ₹5,06,942.

The assessee had already filed a first appeal in Form GST APL-01 before the Appellate Authority on May 1, 2025. That appeal remained pending when the taxpayer approached GSTAT through Form GST APL-05.

The record also reflected a pre-deposit of ₹24,228, consisting of ₹12,114 each under CGST and SGST, paid on May 1, 2025.

The GSTAT Registry issued a scrutiny notice on May 21, 2026, principally pointing out that the Tribunal filing challenged an order-in-original even though the first appeal was still pending.

Other defects concerned the description of the respondent, identification of the appellate authority, missing orders and notices, and verification of the pre-deposit.

During proceedings before the Registrar on August 19, 2026, counsel for the taxpayer acknowledged the defect relating to the respondent and sought its correction. No one appeared for the taxpayer on September 16, 2026, and the matter was adjourned.

In a written clarification dated September 23, 2026, the taxpayer expressly acknowledged that its first appeal remained pending and sought protection against recovery until that appeal was decided.

The Registrar subsequently declined registration through a speaking order dated September 24, 2026, and directed that the matter be placed before the Bench.

The central question was whether an appeal under Section 112(1) could be maintained directly against an original adjudication order when the first appeal under Section 107 remained pending and no appellate or revisional order was challenged.

The Tribunal explained that Section 107(1) provides the first appellate remedy against a decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority. Section 112(1), in turn, permits an appeal before GSTAT against an order passed under Section 107 or Section 108 of the applicable GST legislation.

Accordingly, the statutory sequence requires an original adjudication order to be challenged before the Appellate Authority. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction arises against an eligible appellate or revisional order.

The Assistant Commissioner who issued the demand had acted as an adjudicating authority, not as an appellate or revisional authority. The difference between the date of the signed order and the associated demand reference did not change that position.

The Bench held that neither filing a first appeal nor its continued pendency converts the original adjudication decision into an order under Section 107.

It also rejected the suggestion that the request for protection against recovery could provide a basis for exercising appellate jurisdiction. Since no order under Section 107 or Section 108 had been produced, the statutory prerequisite for a Tribunal appeal was absent.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, concerning the statutory nature of the right of appeal, and Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, concerning the consequences of absence of jurisdiction.

Applying those principles, the Bench concluded that the filing suffered from a jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal distinguished between defects in presentation and the absence of an appealable order.

It held that correcting the respondent’s description, uploading missing documents or producing proof of deposit could not make an original adjudication order directly appealable under Section 112(1).

The Bench also observed that the filing could not be retained in anticipation of a future decision in the pending first appeal. Any challenge to a subsequent appealable order would have to be instituted in accordance with the Act.

On the respondent issue, the Tribunal noted that Rule 33(1) of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025, requires the Commissioner concerned to be joined as respondent in an appeal filed by a person other than the Commissioner. Although correction of the cause title is ordinarily permissible, it could not remedy the fundamental jurisdictional defect in this case.

Addressing the taxpayer’s request for recovery protection, the Tribunal noted that Section 107(7) provides for a deemed stay of recovery of the balance upon payment of the amount prescribed under Section 107(6).

However, it left the question of whether the taxpayer’s payment satisfied all statutory requirements, and the extent of any resulting protection, to the competent authority on the relevant record.

The Bench granted no stay of recovery and made no finding concerning refund, adjustment or forfeiture of the deposit.

It clarified that the assessee could pursue its pending first appeal and, if aggrieved by a subsequent order under Section 107 or Section 108, approach GSTAT subject to the applicable statutory conditions, including limitation and deposit.

No extension of limitation, interim protection against recovery or order as to costs was granted.

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: BREAKING | GSTR-9, GSTR-9C Filing Opens For FY 2025-26; December 31, 2026 Deadline Displayed