GSTAT Committee Recommends Waiver Of Submitting Certified Copies With Appeals If Orders Are On GST Portal
The Committee constituted by the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has recommended that appellants should not be required to file certified copies of orders that are already uploaded on the common GST portal.
The proposal forms part of a wider set of suggested changes to the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025.
The recommendation was among several suggestions considered by the committee after examining representations received from trade bodies, bar associations, and industry stakeholders.
The proposals were finalised during meetings held on May 29 and June 1 under the chairmanship of GSTAT President Justice (Dr.) Sanjaya Kumar Mishra.
Under the proposed amendment to Rule 21, a certified copy of the order appealed against would ordinarily continue to accompany an appeal. However, litigants would be exempt from filing a certified copy if the order is already available on the common portal.
The committee also proposed easing document translation requirements. It recommended that GSTAT Benches be given discretion to waive the requirement of filing English translations in appropriate cases. It further suggested deleting the existing provision that prevents matters from being listed for hearing until all documents relied upon by the parties have been translated into English.
The recommendations also seek to make it easier to cure defects in appeals. Defects would first be notified through the GSTAT portal. Parties would then get fifteen working days to remove them. Registrars would also be empowered to grant additional time, up to forty-five days from the date of filing. They could also hold personal hearings where necessary.
Another proposal seeks to remove the need for litigants to file interlocutory applications merely to seek adjournments. At the same time, the scope of interlocutory applications would be expanded. Restoration applications and other interim reliefs would also be covered.
The committee further proposed replacing daily cause lists with weekly cause lists. Under the proposal, the cause list for the following week would be published before the close of working hours on the last working day of the preceding week. Supplementary lists could still be issued when required.
Respondents may also get additional time to file replies. The existing one-month period could be extended if permitted by the Bench.
Apart from these litigant-facing changes, the committee recommended amendments to the definition of "certified copy". It also proposed the insertion of an appellant verification requirement in appeal forms. Further modifications were suggested to provisions dealing with ex-parte amendments, cross-objections and rejoinders.
The committee did not recommend any changes to the provision governing rectification of orders. It observed that amendments could create complications in view of the limitation period prescribed under the CGST Act.
On tribunal fees, the Committee noted that the issue falls outside its jurisdiction because fees are prescribed under the CGST Rules. It nevertheless suggested that the Ministry of Finance may examine the lower fee structures followed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Committee also recommended that no fee should be charged for applications seeking rectification of errors under the CGST Act.