Author: Ashwarya Sharma, Advocate, Co-Founder & Legal Head, RB Law Corp
Date: 28/04/2026
Introduction: When Forum Selection Shapes the Outcome
With the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) on the verge of becoming operational, one of the most critical questions confronting taxpayers and practitioners is deceptively simple: which bench should an appeal be filed before? What appears to be a procedural choice carries far-reaching implications, affecting not only maintainability but also limitation, litigation strategy, and even the ultimate appellate forum.
The issue is particularly significant in a GST regime that treats each registration as a distinct person, thereby multiplying potential forums in cases involving multi-State operations. The complexity is further heightened in matters arising from centralised investigations, where a single dispute spans multiple jurisdictions. Against this backdrop, understanding the statutory framework of GSTAT and the jurisdictional nuances embedded within it becomes essential.
GSTAT in the GST Framework: Filling a Structural Gap
The GST Appellate Tribunal has been envisaged as the second appellate authority under the GST regime, positioned between departmental appellate authorities and constitutional courts. It is intended to serve as the final fact-finding body, thereby streamlining dispute resolution and reducing the burden on High Courts.
However, delays in its constitution have resulted in an unusual situation where taxpayers have been compelled to approach High Courts directly in the absence of an effective alternate remedy. The operationalisation of GSTAT is therefore expected to restore the intended appellate hierarchy and bring much-needed structure to GST litigation.
Bench Structure: Centralisation vs Federal Balance
The statutory design of GSTAT reflects a careful balance between centralisation and federalism. It provides for a Principal Bench at New Delhi and multiple State or Area Benches across the country.
The Principal Bench is intended to deal with disputes that have national significance or involve complexities transcending State boundaries. In contrast, State Benches are designed to handle routine disputes arising within their territorial jurisdiction. This dual structure seeks to combine specialised adjudication with accessibility for taxpayers.
Yet, for businesses operating across multiple States, this structure introduces a layer of complexity. Since each GST registration is treated as a separate entity, identical issues arising in different States may require separate appeals before different benches. This fragmentation not only increases compliance costs but also creates the risk of inconsistent judicial outcomes on the same legal issue.
Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Principal Bench: Uniformity with Trade-offs
Certain categories of disputes have been specifically reserved for adjudication by the Principal Bench. These include matters involving place of supply, anti-profiteering, cases involving identical questions of law pending before multiple benches, and issues relating to cross-border digital services and online gaming.
The rationale behind this centralisation is clear. Issues such as place of supply have direct implications on revenue distribution between the Centre and States, and divergent interpretations could disrupt the fiscal balance of the GST framework. Similarly, consolidating cases involving identical questions of law helps maintain consistency in jurisprudence and avoids conflicting rulings.
At the same time, this model raises practical concerns. Tax disputes rarely exist in isolation. A single case may involve multiple issues—classification, valuation, input tax credit, and place of supply—making it difficult to neatly categorise jurisdiction. This could lead to preliminary disputes on forum selection, delaying substantive adjudication.
Additionally, centralisation at New Delhi may pose challenges for taxpayers located in distant regions. While virtual hearings offer some relief, they may not fully address concerns relating to effective representation and participation in complex matters.
Single Member Bench: Efficiency for Simpler Disputes
The statutory framework also provides for adjudication by a Single Member Bench in limited circumstances. This applies to cases involving lower monetary stakes and no substantial question of law.
The intent is to enable faster disposal of routine matters, thereby allowing regular benches to focus on complex disputes. While this mechanism promotes efficiency, its practical effectiveness will depend on careful case allocation and adherence to the conditions prescribed.
DGGI Matters: The Challenge of Pan-India Jurisdiction
One of the most complex jurisdictional issues arises in cases initiated by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). These investigations often span multiple States and involve common show cause notices and adjudication orders covering several registrations.
At the adjudication stage, administrative clarity has been introduced by designating a Common Adjudicating Authority based on the location involving the highest tax demand. Similarly, appellate jurisdiction at the first appellate stage has been aligned with the authority overseeing this common adjudication.
However, at the level of GSTAT, no corresponding framework exists. This creates a significant gap, leaving taxpayers to rely on general legal principles to determine jurisdiction.
Judicial precedents on territorial jurisdiction provide some guidance. Courts have recognised that jurisdiction may arise where the cause of action occurs, whether wholly or in part. This could include the place where the adjudication order is passed, where the appellate order is issued, or where the taxpayer is registered and affected.
Applied to GSTAT, this reasoning suggests that multiple benches may simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same dispute. While this offers flexibility to taxpayers, it also opens the door to forum selection and potential jurisdictional challenges, which may themselves become a source of litigation.
Forum Selection and Its Impact on Further Appeals
The choice between the Principal Bench and State Bench carries consequences beyond the Tribunal stage. It directly affects the appellate route available thereafter.
An order passed by the Principal Bench is appealable directly to the Supreme Court, whereas an order passed by a State Bench is appealable before the jurisdictional High Court.
This distinction makes the initial choice of forum critically important. Opting for one bench over another may effectively determine whether a taxpayer has access to High Court review or must approach the Supreme Court directly. The decision is therefore not merely procedural but strategic, shaping the entire trajectory of the dispute.
Conclusion: Jurisdiction as a Substantive Question
As the GSTAT framework takes shape, the question of jurisdiction is emerging as a substantive issue rather than a procedural detail. The absence of clear rules in certain areas, particularly in multi-State and DGGI-driven disputes, is likely to give rise to threshold litigation that could delay resolution on merits.
For taxpayers and practitioners, this underscores the need for a careful and informed approach to forum selection. Each decision must take into account not only the statutory provisions but also the practical implications for litigation strategy and appellate remedies.
At a systemic level, there is a clear need for legislative and administrative clarification to address existing ambiguities. The success of GSTAT will ultimately depend on how effectively it balances uniformity with accessibility, and clarity with flexibility.
The coming years will be crucial in shaping the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. If guided by consistency and predictability, GSTAT has the potential to become a cornerstone of GST dispute resolution. If not, jurisdictional uncertainty may itself become a source of prolonged litigation the very outcome the Tribunal seeks to avoid.
📎 Attached PDF for detailed reading 👉
📎 Full Published Version: https://vilgst.com/showiframe?V1Zaa1VsQlJQVDA9=TVRnMU9RPT0=&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.)
