Supreme Court Strikes Down Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 — Major Implications for GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT)
Author: Ashwarya Sharma, Advocate & Co-Founder, RB LawCorp
Date: 20/11/2025
The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment dated 19 November 2025 in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India has once again reaffirmed that judicial independence is non-negotiable. The Court struck down multiple provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, holding that the Union Government had simply “reproduced in slightly altered form” provisions already declared unconstitutional in previous cases.
This ruling significantly impacts the long-pending GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), whose framework under the CGST Act mirrors the very elements invalidated repeatedly by the Supreme Court.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
- The Act attempted to reintroduce previously struck-down provisions, making it unconstitutional.
- The Court emphasized that Parliament cannot reenact provisions that violate structural principles like separation of powers.
- Observed strong disapproval of repeated legislative non-compliance, calling it “unfortunate and avoidable.”
- Reaffirmed that tribunal independence forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Interim Framework: MBA-IV & MBA-V Now Control Tribunal Appointments
The Court clarified that until a valid statute is enacted, the principles in:
- MBA-IV (2021)
- MBA-V (2022)
will govern all Tribunals regarding:
- appointments
- tenure
- service conditions
- qualification norms
- functioning of Search-cum-Selection Committees (SCSC)
It also directed the Union to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months.
Why GSTAT Is Now Constitutionally Vulnerable
The provisions under Section 110 of the CGST Act suffer from the same defects struck down in this judgment, including:
- Minimum age of 50 years for appointment
- 4-year tenure (too short for judicial independence)
- Two-name recommendation by SCSC
- Executive-heavy composition of the selection committee
- Civil-service–equivalent service conditions
- Reappointment controlled by the executive
Since all these have been explicitly held unconstitutional, the GSTAT framework stands:
- legally fragile,
- administratively unworkable, and
- open to immediate constitutional challenge.
Broader Impact on GST Dispute Resolution
- High Courts continue to face heavy pendency due to non-constitution of GSTAT.
- Taxpayers are forced to file writ petitions even for first-level appeals.
- Lack of a functional Tribunal has resulted in inconsistent GST decisions across States.
- The judgment calls for urgent legislative correction to restore uniformity in GST adjudication.
What Parliament Needs to Change
To ensure a constitutionally sound GSTAT, Parliament must:
- Remove the 50-year minimum age bar.
- Ensure minimum 5-year tenure for Members.
- Provide judicial majority in the SCSC.
- Remove excessive executive influence in appointments & reappointments.
- Align service conditions with the higher judiciary, not civil servants.
- Follow the standards laid down in MBA-IV, MBA-V, and the present judgment.
Conclusion
This judgment is more than a legal ruling — it is a constitutional reset.
It reasserts the judiciary’s independence and exposes fundamental defects in the GSTAT framework. Unless Parliament and the GST Council move swiftly to redraft the Tribunal’s structure, the GST dispute resolution system will continue to face delays, inconsistencies, and serious constitutional challenges.
📎 Attached PDF for detailed reading
👉 Full PDF Article Link (as published): https://vilgst.com/showiframe?V1Zaa1VsQlJQVDA9=TVRjMk9BPT0=&page=articles
(The author is a practicing advocate, Co-Founder and Legal Head of RB LawCorp.
He specializes in GST law. Suggestions or queries can be directed to
ashsharma@rblawcorp.in. The views expressed in this article are strictly
personal.)
