The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has released the inaugural Volume I of the “GSTAT E-Journal”, marking an important milestone in the development of appellate jurisprudence under the Goods and Services Tax regime. In his Foreword, Dr. Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President, GSTAT, has highlighted that GSTAT, as the specialised appellate forum for GST disputes, has a vital role in promoting consistency, certainty and uniformity in the interpretation and application of tax law.
The E-Journal has been conceived as an authoritative and accessible platform for dissemination of significant GSTAT decisions. It is intended to serve the Bench and Bar, tax administrators, legal and tax professionals, academics, industry and other stakeholders, while also becoming a continuing record of the development of GST jurisprudence in India.
Volume I reports 27 significant GSTAT decisions
The inaugural edition contains 20 reported GST cases and 7 anti-profiteering cases, covering a wide spectrum of issues including invocation of Sections 73 and 74, Input Tax Credit (ITC), GSTR-2A/3B mismatch, E-Way Bills, transitional credit, pre-deposit for GSTAT appeals, intermediary services, composition levy, proceedings against deceased proprietors, stock transfers and anti-profiteering.
Section 74 cannot be invoked merely for return mismatch without fraud or suppression
In the important ruling of Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Odisha, the GSTAT Principal Bench held that proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act cannot be sustained unless fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax is established. Where transactions were duly reflected in debit/credit notes and accounted for in books but were not correctly reflected in periodic returns, the matter could not automatically be treated as one involving fraud. The Tribunal further held that it has jurisdiction under Section 112 to examine questions of fact and is the last adjudicating forum on factual issues.
The Tribunal also clarified that where proceedings initiated under Section 74 are found unsustainable, Section 75(2) requires the Proper Officer to re-determine the liability as if the notice had been issued under Section 73; such re-determination cannot itself be undertaken by the First Appellate Authority or Tribunal. The judgment also emphasises that genuine taxpayers should be provided an opportunity to reconcile or amend returns where discrepancies arise from timing or technical constraints. The E-Journal records reference in this case to CBIC Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated October 27, 2025.
Additional 10% pre-deposit condition held prospective
In Reddy Veeranna Constructions Pvt. Ltd., GSTAT considered the proviso to Section 112(8) inserted by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from October 1, 2025, requiring a 10% pre-deposit in penalty-only matters. The Tribunal held the requirement to be prospective, observing that the vested right of appeal arising from orders passed before October 1, 2025 cannot be subjected to a new additional pre-deposit condition in the absence of an express retrospective provision.
Major relief on Bill-to-Ship-to transactions and upstream supplier defaults
In Anil Kumar Singh v. Agarwala’s Bitumex Private Limited, GSTAT recognised the validity of the Bill-to-Ship-to model under Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act. The Tribunal observed that there is no statutory requirement that goods must necessarily originate from the registered premises of the supplier where direct delivery is made to the ship-to location on the buyer’s instructions. Where export, invoices, E-Way Bills, transport documents and payments were duly established, absence of particular toll-plaza records could not by itself justify denial of ITC/refund.
The Tribunal further held that cancellation of GST registrations of second-line/upstream suppliers cannot automatically result in denial of ITC or refund to a taxpayer where its own direct supplier held a valid registration and the taxpayer had no connection with the upstream suppliers or their alleged irregularities.
Mere GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A mismatch not sufficient for summary denial of ITC
In N.R. Builders v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, GSTAT held that non-reflection of an invoice in GSTR-2A, particularly for the early GST period, cannot by itself be treated as conclusive proof of inadmissible ITC. The Tribunal noted that GSTR-2A operated as a facilitation tool and referred to CBIC Circular No. 183/15/2022-GST, which contemplates verification rather than summary rejection of ITC.
Same-GSTIN stock transfer not a taxable “supply”; Section 129 penalty not automatic
In M.S. Steels v. Commissioner of Kerala State GST, GSTAT held that movement of goods from one registered premises to another premises of the same person under the same GSTIN, without consideration or involvement of another person/entity, does not constitute a “supply” under Section 7 of the CGST Act. Consequently, no tax becomes payable merely on such movement and penalty under Section 129, being linked to tax payable, cannot be imposed solely for such stock transfer. The Tribunal, however, separately recognised the applicability of the E-Way Bill requirement under Rule 138 in appropriate cases.
Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax: amendment to Rule 43 held prospective
In a significant ruling concerning MEIS Duty Credit Scrips, GSTAT examined the amendment to Rule 43 of the CGST Rules made through Notification No. 14/2022-Central Tax dated July 5, 2022. The Tribunal held that exclusion of the value of duty credit scrips from aggregate exempt supplies for ITC reversal purposes was prospective from July 5, 2022, and could not be applied retrospectively for an earlier period.
Retrospective Section 16(5) protects eligible ITC, but does not automatically waive interest
On the retrospective insertion of Section 16(5) of the CGST Act, GSTAT held that eligible ITC pertaining to FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21 can be protected where the relevant returns were filed within the extended statutory cut-off of November 30, 2021. However, the retrospective relief from the time restriction under Section 16(4) does not by itself extinguish a separate liability for interest under Section 50(1) arising from delayed discharge of admitted cash tax liability.
E-Journal expected to strengthen uniform GST jurisprudence
The publication assumes significance as GSTAT develops into the principal specialised appellate institution under the GST framework. The E-Journal is designed not merely as a repository of decisions, but as a continuing record of legal principles emerging from GSTAT, facilitating easier access to precedent and greater consistency in GST administration and adjudication. The President, GSTAT has expressed confidence that the initiative will contribute to certainty, consistency and accessibility of justice in taxation.
The Complete E-Journal can be accessed at: https://a2ztaxcorp.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/GSTAT-E-Journal-1-Sep-2026-edition.pdf
