The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Division Bench, Court No. I, has held that an appeal raising serious issues concerning the jurisdiction of the lower authority, legally effective communication of notices and orders, and violation of principles of natural justice warrants consideration by a Division Bench rather than being referred for allocation to a Single Bench.
The Bench of Mahtab Ahmad (Judicial Member) and Ashish Varma (Technical Member) observed that the appeal involved not merely questions of fact but also questions of law and mixed questions of fact and law.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal involved a serious question relating to the jurisdiction or competence of the lower forum to handle the matter. The appellant had also raised issues concerning the legal effectiveness of communication of notices and orders and alleged violation of the principles of natural justice.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
The Bench observed that these issues could not be characterised as purely factual. Since the appeal involved questions of law and mixed questions of fact and law, the Tribunal found that it was not an appropriate matter to be referred to the President/Vice-President for allocation to a Single Bench.
Accordingly, the matter was retained for adjudication by the Division Bench.
The Tribunal’s reference to principles of natural justice is particularly significant. Although the August 17 order does not finally determine whether natural justice was in fact violated, the Bench recognised that the issue raised by the appellant had sufficient legal significance to form part of the appellate proceedings.
The order therefore leaves the substantive questions, including the precise effect of the alleged procedural defects, open for consideration at the subsequent stage.
The Tribunal also dealt with an important procedural issue concerning the filing of pleadings.
During the hearing, the Revenue’s written reply was produced in hard copy. However, the Tribunal recorded that GSTAT proceedings are paperless and that pleadings, evidence and applications are required to be filed by the concerned parties by uploading them on the GSTAT portal.
The Court Officer informed the Bench that the Tribunal did not have an option to upload pleadings, applications, replies or evidence submitted in hard copy.
Consequently, the Bench found itself unable to take the hard-copy reply on record and returned it to the Revenue’s representative with a direction to file it on the GSTAT portal in the prescribed manner.
The Senior/Assistant State Representative representing the Revenue subsequently requested permission to file the reply through the portal at a later date.
The Bench allowed the request in the interest of justice and permitted the Revenue to file its response electronically.
The matter was thereafter fixed for hearing on September 3, 2026.
The direction reinforces the Tribunal’s insistence that parties comply with the electronic filing mechanism prescribed for GSTAT proceedings.
The order goes beyond the individual appeal and raises concerns about the broader administrative handling of GSTAT matters by the Uttar Pradesh tax department.
During the hearing, the Bench learnt that a nodal officer at the headquarters of the Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh, had been nominated to assign appeals filed before the different GSTAT Benches in the State.
The order refers to GSTAT Benches at Agra, Ghaziabad, Lucknow, Prayagraj and Varanasi, with the concerned Senior/Assistant State Representative expected to access and work on the GSTAT portal in relation to appeals assigned to the respective Bench.
However, the Tribunal expressed surprise that the Revenue Department had not, until then, streamlined prompt and effective handling of appeals through the GSTAT portal.
The Division Bench directed that the issue be brought to the notice of the Commissioner, State Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, with directions to ensure prompt and effective action by the Revenue Department on the GSTAT portal.
The Tribunal specifically stressed that administrative deficiencies should not result in appeals already fixed for hearing being unnecessarily adjourned or delayed.
A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Commissioner for compliance on a priority basis.
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.
