Скачать или смотреть The Scope of GSTAT Appeals: From Original Orders to New Grounds and Procedural Fairness

Bench Composition and Conflicts:
Question of Law vs. Fact: The discussion began by differentiating bench requirements. For pure questions of law, a Judicial Member's involvement is deemed crucial, potentially leading to challenges if the bench composition (e.g., additional technical members) doesn't align with the nature of the issue.
Direct Appeal Ambiguity (Sec 112 vs. Rule 21): A significant point was the apparent conflict regarding the appealable order. Section 112 mandates appeals against the Order-in-Appeal (APL-04) from the Appellate Authority. However, Rule 21(1) requires submitting a copy of the original adjudication order (OIO / DRC-07). This led to discussion on whether this implied a direct appeal against the OIO was possible. The consensus was that the OIO copy is required for context – understanding the original issues, dropped grounds, etc. – rather than enabling a direct appeal bypassing the first appellate stage. It was clarified that appeals rejected by the first appellate authority (e.g., on time-bar) without an APL-04 cannot proceed to GSTAT unless specific exceptions are made.
New Grounds at GSTAT (Rule 43): The Tribunal generally restricts parties to grounds raised in the appeal memo. However, Rule 43 allows the Tribunal, with its leave, to permit new grounds to be argued, provided the opposing party has a chance to be heard. This power extends to the Tribunal taking up issues suo motu or issues dropped at the first appeal stage, if satisfied it's necessary for justice (drawing parallels from ITAT practice, even if not explicitly detailed in GST law).
Differing Opinions (Sec 109(9) vs. Rule 50): Another conflict noted was handling differences of opinion within a bench. Section 109(9) suggests referring the point of difference to a third member. Rule 50, however, empowers the President to refer the matter to a larger bench (which typically means adding members, up to a maximum of four total). The practical implication and ideal composition (Judicial vs. Technical addition) of this third member/larger bench remained somewhat unclear, especially concerning the President's role versus the statutory provision.
Key Procedural Aspects:
Additional Evidence (Rule 45): Parties are generally not entitled to produce additional evidence (oral or documentary) before GSTAT. However, the Tribunal can allow it if deemed necessary for passing orders, for sufficient cause, or if the lower authorities decided without providing adequate opportunity to adduce evidence. Any evidence allowed must align with what was presented below. Provisions exist for witness examination and cross-examination.
Record Keeping & Documentation: Extensive rules cover maintaining court diaries (CDR-02), order sheets, various registers (CDR-03 for unnumbered/provisional appeals, CDR-04 for regular appeals, CDR-05 for interlocutory applications), and arranging case files into distinct parts (Main, Miscellaneous, Process, Execution). The issue of "unnumbered" appeals lacking serial numbers and hearing dates was flagged as needing follow-up.
Orders: Orders must be in writing (English), signed, and dated. Rules specify how the date is determined for dictated vs. reserved orders. Routine procedural orders can be signed by the Court Officer, while substantive orders require Member signatures.
Citations & Conduct: Parties must furnish lists/copies of citations (Rule 57). An anecdote highlighted the importance of carrying necessary statutes, as benches may not always have them readily available. Rules also emphasize maintaining court decorum and silence (Rule 59).
Record Preservation (Rule 65): Physical records are generally preserved for 5 years post-final order, while the Registry maintains records (including orders) for 15 years. A concern was raised about the 5-year destruction rule if appeals are pending before higher courts. Records are to be weeded out post-preservation period (Rule 66).
Concluding Discussion:
The session ended by discussing a Patna High Court judgment concerning recovery proceedings. The court penalized an officer for initiating recovery under Section 79 prematurely (before the mandated 3-month waiting period post-DRC-07 under Section 78), ordering a refund with 12% interest. This highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the mandatory nature of issuing pre-recovery intimation (Rule 142B), though it was cautioned that such judgments are fact-specific and rely on solid grounds for challenging the recovery itself.
___________________________________
Enjoy & stay connected with us!
👉 Join Tax By KK to watch premium GST updates:    / @gst_expert_kk  
👉 Website: TaxByKK.com
👉 E Mail: [email protected]
👉 Connect us on LinkedIn:   / gstexpertcskk  
👉 Join our What's app community: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va9l...