TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
16 Oct 2026 
It is highly heartening to note that the GSTAT has started to work in the minimum possible time amidst several challenges. As on 13/10/2026, a total number of 93,632 appeals have been successfully filed in the portal out of which 9,605 appeals have already been admitted. A total number of 398 orders have been passed by various benches with the message that more and more orders are in pipeline. At this juncture it may be recalled that the GST officials, all over India, irrespective of whether they are from State or Central were focusing only on revenue augmentation in gross violation of several sections which were either improperly applied or issue was decided in total contradiction to the intention of the legislature which are evident from recent orders of GSTAT. Things are no more the same. The Government has laid the roadmap in a perfect manner in their 56th as well as 57th GST Council meetings that their priority is quality adjudication orders and reduction in avoidable litigation. Litigation can-not be stopped and that is why there are 29 benches with 45 strategic locations all over India as on date but it is absolutely possible to reduce the litigation. The entire focus of the council on their meeting took place on 08/10/2026 was on process improvement.
The adjudication officers as well as first appellate authorities were focusing on revenue only which is evident from all the 398 decisions. This message that there is change in the trend in which the adjudication orders are to be passed in future must reach all stakeholders. To strengthen, it is proposed to discuss few GSTAT orders of the recent times for creating awareness.
ONE: IN THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH COURT NO. 1
Santosh Jaiswal Versus Anand Surana. - 2026 (10) TMI 932 - GSTAT KOLKATA
This is a case pertaining to transitional credit availed as on 01/07/2017. The law was new. Small business people did not have much clarity on the issues. The system did not allow the taxpayer to make corrections on the originally availed return due to technical reasons. The taxpayer observed that a huge sum pertaining to Cenvat Credit on services was omitted to be availed and accordingly availed the same. This was denied in adjudication and interest as well as penalty under section 74 were also confirmed. Aggrieved by this, the taxpayer preferred the first appeal. The same was allowed as there was a procedural lapse which can-not deny a substantial benefit. Revenue preferred this appeal and Tribunal observed that "[6]. Evidently, the difference requires a thorough verification by the authorities concerned. Therefore, we remand the case to the Proper Officer/Adjudicating Authority only for this limited purpose and for passing a reasoned order on the basis of the verification. M/s Micro Labs Ltd is also directed to produce all relevant records before the authorities without any delay. The Adjudicating Authority should complete the whole exercise within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.
Dated:- October 9, 2026
This case carries lesson to all the first appellate authority all over India. The roles and responsibilities of an adjudicating officer and that of the first appellate authority are altogether different. It is unfortunate that many first appellate authorities simply play the role of an adjudication officer which increases the litigation many fold. This is the issue in this case where the first appellate authority simply rejected the appeal without recording any reasons, grounds or proper justifications for such decision. The division bench of GSTAT has come down heavily on such cryptic orders. The operative portion reads as "[10]. From a bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Authority, it would be explicitly clear that the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order has not stated the points for determination and no reason at all has been recorded by it as to how it arrived at the decision. We are of the considered view that the Appellate Authority should have passed a reasoned and speaking order after evaluation of the facts independently. Moreover, the grounds raised by the appellant in his defense should also have been addressed in the impugned order for rejecting the appeal. There are plethora of judicial pronouncements in which it has been consistently held that rejection of appeal by cryptic and non- speaking order without recording justifiable reasons violate the principals of natural justice ".
Both the above orders are not giving decisions only in respect of the cases that have been taken up by them but the message is applicable for all similar cases.
Three: The issue of tax head mismatch is almost settled. In
t was ruled as " The order in appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the following terms:
a. the excess credit available in the CGST / SGST arising out of appellant's clerical mistake is allowed to be set off against the shortfall in IGST amount due through the electronic credit ledger.
b. any amount which is still due to the revenue after the set off is liable to be recovered in cash along with interest as per applicable legal provisions.
Conclusion: The above order on tax head mismatch is based on 10 high court decisions and accordingly, there is no room for any tax officials to take a different stand on the above situations.