APRIL 30, 2025

GSTAT Procedure Rules

By Vijay Kumar

GSTAT - 'Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal', on 24th April 2025 issued the Rules for regulating the procedure and functioning of the GSTAT. These Rules are made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 111 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which states

the Appellate Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure.

Does this mean it can make the Rules? Perhaps it does. Other Tribunals have made Rules likewise.

Now, what or who is the Tribunal? When the Act states that the Tribunal can regulate its own procedure, who in the Tribunal can do it? Is it the President or all Members of the Tribunal or a collegium of Members or any single Member? As of now, this Tribunal has only one Member who is also the President. So, he is the Tribunal.

As I read the Rules notified and gazetted, I get some basic doubts; they maybe elementary, fundamental or outright senseless, but still they linger.

As per Rule 2(1)(f) of the 'Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025',

"certified copy" means the original copy of the order or the documents received by the party, or a copy thereof duly authenticated by the concerned department, or a copy duly authenticated by the 'authorised representative' of the appellant or respondent.

Now who in the concerned department should duly authenticate the order copy? And why is the department concerned?

As per Rule 18(1),

An appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall be filed online on GSTAT Portal.

But as per Rule 19,

The Registrar or, as the case may be, the officer authorised by him, shall endorse on every Form of appeal the date on which it is presented or deemed to have been presented under that rule and shall sign the endorsement, if the appeal is filed manually.

When the appeal is to be filed online, where is the question of filing it manually?

As per Rule 21(1) proviso,

where an application filed under the direction of the Commissioner, the copy of the order appealed against shall be an attested copy instead of a certified copy.

What is the difference between an attested copy and a certified copy in relation to GST and the GSTAT?

As per Rule 21(2),

A certified copy of the decision or order appealed against along with fees as specified in sub-rule 5 of rule 110 of the Rules shall be submitted online and a final acknowledgement, shall be issued the Rules, by the GSTAT Portal.

What does this mean? Maybe the words, the Rules somehow got in there.

There is a correct usage of concerned in Rule 22 -

every appeal or pleadings shall be signed and verified by the party concerned in the manner provided by these rules.

It is the party concerned and not the concerned party. There is a Concerned Commissioner and a Commissioner concerned. Obviously, both are not same.

The concerned Commissioner is a worried Commissioner whereas a Commissioner concerned is a responsible, involved, related, affected Commissioner.

Both styles are used in these Rules as tabulated below:

As per Rule 23(1),

A document other than English language intended to be used in any proceeding before the Appellate Tribunal shall be received by the Registry accompanied by a translated copy in English, which is agreed to by both the parties or certified to be a true translated copy by the authorised representative engaged on behalf of parties in the case;

A document other than English - maybe what they meant was 'A document other than in English', as used in the copy in English.

Rule 33 states:

(1) In an appeal or an application filed by a person other than the [Commissioner], the [Commissioner] concerned shall be made the respondent to the appeal or the application, as the case may be.

(2) In an appeal or an application by the [Commissioner], the other party shall be made the respondent to the appeal.

Why is the Commissioner in brackets?

Rule 49 states:

Procedure for filing of and disposal of interlocutory application. - The provisions of the rules regarding the filing of interlocutory applications shall, in so far as may be, apply mutatis mutandis to the filing of applications under this rule.

This Rule does not provide for filing any applications. Which rule are they referring to?

Rule 50 states:

Appeal referred to larger Bench. - In case of different opinion of Members of Bench while hearing an appeal, the appeal shall be referred to larger Bench by the President, as it deems fit, for disposal of the appeal.

Does it refer to the President?

As per Section 109(9) of the CGST Act, If, after hearing the case, the Members differ in their opinion on any point or points, such Member shall state the point or points on which they differ, and the President shall refer such case for hearing,- to another Member. This is the concept of Third Member. Now as per the procedure, the matter has to be referred to a Larger Bench. Can the procedure override the Act?

Further Rule 50 states, "In case of different opinion of Members of Bench while hearing an appeal…" Can they have a difference of opinion while hearing or should it be after hearing?

As per Rule 80,

Affidavits shall be sworn or affirmed before an advocate or notary, who shall affix his official seal.

What is the official seal of an advocate?

As per Rule 105(4),

If the order cannot be signed by reason of death, retirement or resignation or for any other reason by anyone of the Members of the Bench who heard the case, it shall be deemed to have been released from part heard and listed afresh for hearing.

Anyone does not mean 'any one'.

Rule 112 stipulates that

All orders shall be neatly and fairly typewritten in double space on one side only on durable foolscap folio paper of metric A-4 size (30.5 cm long and 21.5 cm wide) with left side margin of 5 cm and right-side margin of 2.5 cm.

Now, this seems to be a strange kind of paper - foolscap folio metric A-4. Anyway, the litigants need not bother - it is the paper that the Tribunal is going to use. More strangely, why should it be typed only on one side, when we have quality computers and printers now? Maybe printing on both sides of a paper is slightly baffling and you may end up wasting more paper than when printing on one side.

As per Rule 114(4),

The order folders and the indices may be made available for reference in the library to the authorised representative.

Who is the authorised representative? There would be several of them!

While it is commendable that the Tribunal has come out with these rules much before the Benches actually start sitting, and a lot of hard work had gone into drafting the difficult rules, it could have been better.

GST is nearly eight years old and we are still without a functional appellate tribunal. Tribunalisation in taxation is not exactly new in India - the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal started functioning from 25th January 1941. But Tribunal came to the indirect taxes field much later in 1982 - that too not that easily.

In the primitive days before 1982, appellate mechanism in the department was also primitive. After the Appellate Commissioner, it was the Joint Secretary (review), who was almost the final authority and there were hardly any publications for reference. Maybe the idea was that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be not done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be not done.

The CEGAT [Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal] created by the Finance Act of 1980 started functioning from 11th October 1982. The Notification constituting the tribunal with effect from 11.10.1982 was actually issued on 12.10.1982. There was no internet in those days and just imagine the time it must have taken for the notification to reach remote parts of India.

The Tribunal was officially constituted and it needed Members. So, with the same date, 11.10.1982, the Revenue Department issued Notification No. 76/82 appointing 18 Members.

On the same day, the government appointed three Members of the Tribunal as Vice-Presidents.

Mr. S. Venkatesan who was appointed a Member of the Tribunal on 11.10.1982 was appointed as a Senior Vice President on the same day.

Mr. Venkatesan became a Member of the Tribunal on 11.10.1982, was promoted as Senior Vice-President on the same day and promoted as President for a month the next day. But a month is not too long. On November 12th, another notification was issued extending the tenure of Mr. Venkatesan by another month.

This ended on 11th December 1982 and still there was no President. This time Mr. Venkatesan was appointed as Senior Vice-President again by another notification.

On 22.12.1982, Mr. Fauja Singh Gill, a retired High Court judge was appointed as a Member of the Tribunal. And on the same day, he was appointed President.

The CEGAT Procedure Rules came into force on 25-10-1982.

The Tribunal did not start with a clean slate. Nearly 15000 cases were transferred to it. The Tribunal established itself as a citadel of justice and temple of knowledge with highly brilliant Members sitting on the Benches and erudite advocates cracking complicated legal issues.

Whether you're the concerned party stuck between attested and certified chaos or a party concerned about why we are typing on foolscap folio paper in the 21st century, let us hope for justice - on one side of the paper at a time!