Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeNotificationDineshkumar V. Trivedi Appointed as Technical Member (State) at GSTAT Ahmedabad Bench

Dineshkumar V. Trivedi Appointed as Technical Member (State) at GSTAT Ahmedabad Bench

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The President of India has appointed Shri Dineshkumar Vajeshanker Trivedi, Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals) from the Government of Gujarat, as the Technical Member (State) in the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) for the Gujarat State Bench located in Ahmedabad.

The appointment, formalized through Office Order No. TMS – 05/2025 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, grants Shri Trivedi a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 2,25,000. His tenure will last four years from the date of assuming charge or until he reaches the age of 67, whichever comes earlier. This is in accordance with the GSTAT (Appointment and Conditions of Service of President and Members) Rules, 2023, and relevant provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

As per the order, Shri Trivedi is required to report to the Principal Bench of GSTAT in New Delhi on or after August 1, 2025, and assume his duties within four weeks from that date. He is also mandated to submit a medical fitness certificate from an authority designated by the state government of Gujarat.

The appointment marks a significant development in the strengthening of GSTAT’s adjudicatory capacity across the states, especially in handling the increasing load of tax-related appeals and disputes.

Office Order Details

Office Order No. TMS 05/2025

Date: 10/07/2025

Read More: Rameshkumar Hadvani Appointed Technical Member (State) at GSTAT Surat Bench

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Personal Hearing Can’t Precede Deadline for GST Notice Reply: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes S. 73 Order

The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a GST assessment order after finding that...

GST Rectification Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because 3 Month Timeline Expired; Authority Doesn’t Become Functus Officio: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a GST rectification application filed within the...

Electricity Charges Arise Only After Supply and Billing; Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 57.74 Lakh Demand for Unreleased Additional Load

The Supreme Court has rejected an electricity distribution company’s attempt to recover ₹57.74 lakh...

Refund of Interest Paid on GST Liability Discharged Through ITC: GSTAT Restrains State Benches From Deciding Appeals

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has restrained...

More like this

Personal Hearing Can’t Precede Deadline for GST Notice Reply: Uttarakhand High Court Quashes S. 73 Order

The Uttarakhand High Court has set aside a GST assessment order after finding that...

GST Rectification Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because 3 Month Timeline Expired; Authority Doesn’t Become Functus Officio: Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that a GST rectification application filed within the...

Electricity Charges Arise Only After Supply and Billing; Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 57.74 Lakh Demand for Unreleased Additional Load

The Supreme Court has rejected an electricity distribution company’s attempt to recover ₹57.74 lakh...