The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Chennai Bench, has directed that eleven connected appeals concerning the rejection of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refunds totalling ₹1,40,95,191 be heard together by a Division Bench comprising one Judicial Member and one Technical Member.

The bench of Praveen Kumar Jain (Judicial Member) and Shaik Khader Rahman (Technical Member) observed that the appeals raised a common question of law concerning the retrospective application of a beneficial amendment under Notification No. 15/2018–Integrated Tax (Rate), dated July 26, 2018. It also ruled that, for appeals bunched together for hearing, the ₹50 lakh threshold for consideration by a Single Member Bench must be assessed cumulatively. 

Buy Now: Litigation Guide For GSTAT : From Litigation Checklist To Procedure Guide Specially Designed To Carter Requirements Of CAs, Advocate

The Tribunal has neither granted the refunds nor finally decided whether the notification applies retrospectively. The connected appeals have been listed for hearing on merits on November 23, 2026.

The dispute arose from the rejection of refund claims relating to IGST paid on the export of services for eleven monthly tax periods between August 2017 and June 2018.

The Original Adjudicating Authority rejected the claims, and the First Appellate Authority affirmed those decisions. The company subsequently approached the Tribunal through separate appeals for the respective tax periods.

The amounts recorded in FORM GST APL-04 were reproduced in the order as follows:

The Tribunal had earlier directed the Registry, through an order dated September 8, 2026, to bunch the appeals and list them for hearing on the question of law. Both sides were heard on September 15, 2026.

The company’s authorised representative filed a consolidated paper book containing the documents relating to all eleven appeals. The department also filed written submissions.

Explaining why the appeals should proceed together, the Tribunal noted that the parties were common and that each appeal arose from the denial of an IGST refund on the export of services. The only differences were the relevant tax periods and the amounts claimed.

The Bench reasoned that a joint hearing would promote consistency and avoid divergent findings on the same legal issue.

The Tribunal examined Section 109(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 110A of the CGST Rules, 2017, which the order records as having been inserted with effect from September 22, 2025.

According to the Bench, placement of a matter before a Single Member Bench, with the President’s approval, requires two conditions to be satisfied together: the amount involved must not exceed ₹50 lakh, and the appeal must not involve a question of law.

For appeals bunched together, the Tribunal held that the monetary threshold must be determined by adding the amounts involved across the connected appeals.

Although each individual appeal concerned an amount below ₹50 lakh, the combined amount of ₹1,40,95,191 exceeded that limit. The Bench therefore concluded that the connected appeals did not qualify for consideration by a Single Member Bench on this ground.

The Tribunal also offered a separate reason for holding that the dispute did not fall within the category contemplated for a Single Member Bench.

It observed that Section 109(8) refers to the amount of tax or input tax credit involved, or the amount of fine, fee or penalty determined by the order under challenge.

In the Bench’s view, rejection of a claim for refund of IGST paid on the export of services represents the denial of an entitlement claimed by the taxpayer. It is not, in terms, an amount of tax, input tax credit, fine, fee or penalty determined against the taxpayer.

The Tribunal considered this distinction relevant independently of the monetary threshold.

Both the company and the department submitted that the appeals involved a question of law. The Tribunal accepted that submission.

The central issue was whether the beneficial amendment under Notification No. 15/2018–Integrated Tax (Rate), dated July 26, 2018, could govern refund claims relating to the earlier periods in dispute.

The Bench identified the interpretive question as whether the amendment was curative and therefore retrospective, or substantive and therefore prospective. Determining that issue would also decide whether the refund claims were governed by the amended or unamended legal position.

The Tribunal explained that this exercise required interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, notifications and circulars governing the processing of export-of-services refund claims.

It held that issues requiring interpretation of legal principles, statutes, notifications, circulars or precedents constitute questions of law and require consideration by a Division Bench.

The Tribunal directed that the leading appeal and the ten connected appeals be heard together by a Bench comprising one Judicial Member and one Technical Member.

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: GST Transitional Credit Recovery Raises Questions Of Law, Requires Division Bench Hearing: GSTAT