Author: Ashwarya Sharma, Advocate, Co-Founder & Legal Head, RB LawCorp
Published on: 27/07/2026
Introduction
The CBIC has recently issued Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST dated 25 July 2026, prescribing the procedure for filing departmental appeals before the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) in matters adjudicated by the Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA)—commonly referred to as DGGI cases.
At first glance, the Circular appears to be purely procedural. A closer reading, however, reveals something far more significant. For the first time since the Common Adjudicating Authority framework was introduced, the Board has shifted the focus from the Commissionerate where the CAA is posted to the jurisdictional Commissionerate of the individual taxpayer.
This change may appear subtle, but it raises an important jurisprudential question: Has the CBIC itself quietly acknowledged that taxpayer-centric territorial jurisdiction is the more appropriate jurisdictional principle for DGGI matters?
Viewed alongside the earlier circulars governing common adjudication and appeals, the latest Circular may signal an evolution in the Board’s own understanding of jurisdiction under the CGST Act.
Genesis of the Common Adjudicating Authority
The concept of the Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) was introduced through Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST dated 12 March 2022, following the insertion of Paragraph 3A into Notification No. 2/2017-Central Tax.
The purpose behind this mechanism was straightforward.
DGGI investigations often involve multiple taxpayers spread across different States. If separate adjudicating authorities were to decide identical issues arising from the same investigation, conflicting findings could easily emerge.
To avoid such inconsistency, the Board created a system whereby specified Joint and Additional Commissioners were granted all-India jurisdiction to adjudicate DGGI show cause notices as the Common Adjudicating Authority.
From an administrative perspective, the arrangement ensured uniformity.
From the taxpayer’s perspective, however, it often meant defending proceedings before an adjudicating authority located hundreds of kilometres away from the taxpayer’s own jurisdiction.
Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST: Centralising the Entire Appellate Structure
The next significant development came with Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST dated 24 June 2025.
The Circular did far more than regulate appeals—it effectively centralised the entire post-adjudication framework.
It provided that:
- the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner supervising the Common Adjudicating Authority would exercise review powers under Section 107;
- the same Commissioner would exercise revisional powers under Section 108;
- appeals under Section 107 would lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) corresponding to the Commissionerate where the Common Adjudicating Authority was posted; and
- departmental appeals would likewise be handled by that Commissionerate.
In effect, the Board extended the logic of centralised adjudication to the entire appellate ecosystem.
Everything—from review and revision to departmental representation and first appeals—became anchored to the Commissionerate of the Common Adjudicating Authority rather than the taxpayer’s own jurisdiction.
Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST: A Noticeable Shift
The latest Circular marks a clear departure from that approach.
Under Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST, the appellate order is initially communicated to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the Common Adjudicating Authority.
However, thereafter the process changes fundamentally.
The Commissioner supervising the CAA merely examines the order, obtains comments from the DGGI where necessary, and forwards recommendations to the jurisdictional Commissioners of the respective taxpayers.
The crucial decisions now rest with those jurisdictional Commissioners.
They decide whether departmental appeals should be filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112, and separate appeals are required to be filed before the GSTAT Bench having territorial jurisdiction over each taxpayer.
The emphasis therefore shifts from the Common Adjudicating Authority to the taxpayer’s own jurisdictional Commissionerate.
Has the Board Quietly Accepted the More Logical Jurisdictional Principle?
The latest Circular naturally raises an important question.
If the jurisdictional Commissioner of the taxpayer is now considered the appropriate authority to evaluate the legality of appellate orders and decide whether further appeals should be filed before the GSTAT, why was this very principle not adopted at the earlier stages?
After all, the taxpayer’s jurisdictional Commissionerate:
- administers the taxpayer on a continuing basis;
- possesses institutional familiarity with the taxpayer’s affairs;
- and ultimately safeguards the revenue interests relating to that taxpayer.
Once these considerations are accepted for GSTAT litigation, the rationale for continuing review, revision, and first appeals before the Commissionerate of the Common Adjudicating Authority becomes considerably more difficult to justify.
Should the Same Logic Have Applied to Adjudication Itself?
The Circular also revives a broader debate.
Centralised adjudication undoubtedly promotes consistency in DGGI investigations involving multiple taxpayers.
Yet consistency could perhaps have been achieved through coordinated decision-making while allowing taxpayers to continue before their own jurisdictional adjudicating authorities.
Instead, taxpayers have often been required to:
- defend adjudication before authorities located outside their State; and
- pursue first appeals before appellate authorities linked to the Common Adjudicating Authority rather than to their own jurisdiction.
The latest Circular demonstrates that a taxpayer-centric territorial framework is administratively workable at the GSTAT stage.
That naturally raises the question whether the same approach could—and perhaps should—have been adopted from the very beginning.
Implications for Future Litigation
Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST may therefore have consequences extending beyond procedural appeals.
Taxpayers may contend that the Board has itself recognised the superiority of jurisdiction-based decision-making by restoring the role of the jurisdictional Commissioner at the GSTAT stage.
If that premise is accepted, earlier circulars requiring adjudication, review, revision, and first appeals to remain tied to the Common Adjudicating Authority may increasingly come under judicial scrutiny.
Whether constitutional courts ultimately accept such arguments remains to be seen.
Nevertheless, the differing approaches reflected in the 2025 and 2026 Circulars are likely to fuel fresh litigation concerning jurisdiction in DGGI matters.
Conclusion
Although Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST has been issued as a procedural clarification governing departmental appeals before the GSTAT, its implications extend much further.
For the first time, the Board has consciously restored significance to the jurisdictional Commissionerate of the taxpayer, signalling a departure from the fully centralised model introduced through the Common Adjudicating Authority framework.
This shift inevitably raises an important jurisprudential question.
If taxpayer-centric jurisdiction is now regarded as the appropriate foundation for departmental review and GSTAT appeals, was there ever a compelling justification for denying that same jurisdictional approach at the stages of adjudication and first appeal?
The answer may ultimately come not through another administrative circular, but through judicial interpretation.
Until then, Circular No. 256/02/2026-GST may well become the starting point for a renewed debate on territorial jurisdiction, taxpayer convenience, and the future of the Common Adjudicating Authority framework under GST.
📎 Attached Article for Detailed Reading
📎 Full Published Version: https://vilgst.com/showiframe?V1Zaa1VsQlJQVDA9=TVRrMU1BPT0=&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.)
