The significance of GSTAT is twofold. First, it provides a specialist forum with technical depth in GST law — unlike the High Court, which entertains GST matters only on questions of law and jurisdictional challenges under Article 226. The GSTAT bench will engage with the merits of the GST dispute: whether the ITC was correctly denied, whether the classification is correct, whether the place of supply was rightly determined, whether the valuation methodology applied by the officer was legally valid. Second, the existence of GSTAT means that the High Court will no longer entertain direct petitions against First Appellate Authority orders in most cases — the statutory appellate remedy must be exhausted first.
GP's GST litigation practice spans the complete appellate structure — from responding to the original show cause notice through the adjudication, the First Appellate Authority, GSTAT, and the High Court. The combination of GP's in-house GST advisory team and its tax litigation team means that the legal strategy and the technical GST analysis are developed together — an integration that is essential in GST disputes where the legal position and the commercial reality of the supply are inseparable.
The appeal against a GST demand order must first go to the First Appellate Authority — the Commissioner (Appeals) — within three months of the demand order. The appeal must be accompanied by a pre-deposit of 10% of the disputed tax. GP prepares and files the First Appellate Authority appeal with a detailed written submission — covering the legal grounds, the factual record of the supply, the correct classification or valuation analysis, and the ITC eligibility position. The First Appellate Authority hearing is the first opportunity to put a properly argued case on the record — and the quality of the first appeal determines the strength of the GSTAT appeal that follows if the first appeal is unsuccessful.
The GST Appellate Tribunal hears appeals against First Appellate Authority orders — on both questions of law and questions of fact. The GSTAT appeal must be filed within three months of the First Appellate Authority order, with a pre-deposit of 20% of the disputed tax (reduced to the extent already deposited at the First Appellate Authority stage). GP files GSTAT appeals, prepares written submissions that engage with the full technical GST analysis required at the tribunal level, and represents taxpayers at the GSTAT bench hearings. For matters where adverse First Appellate Authority orders were pending before GSTAT became operational, GP advises on the transition provisions and the filing window under the CGST Act.
Input tax credit disputes are the largest single category of GST litigation — denial of ITC on the ground that the supplier has not filed their returns or paid the tax (GSTR-2A/2B mismatch), reversal demands for ITC on exempt supplies, blocked credit disputes under Section 17(5), and ITC eligibility questions for mixed supplies. GP defends ITC denial orders at the First Appellate Authority and GSTAT — establishing the taxpayer's entitlement to ITC on the basis of the supplier's GSTIN, the tax invoice, the payment of consideration, and the receipt of goods or services, and challenging the legal basis on which the department seeks to deny ITC for supplier defaults that are beyond the recipient's control.
GST classification disputes — whether a supply is a good or a service, which HSN or SAC heading applies, whether a composite supply is taxable at the rate of the principal supply or at mixed rates — are among the most technically demanding matters in GST litigation. Place of supply disputes determine whether CGST and SGST or IGST applies — with significant implications for the revenue distribution between the Centre and the State and for the taxpayer's ITC position. GP handles classification and place of supply disputes from the show cause notice stage through the First Appellate Authority and GSTAT, with GP's in-house GST advisory team providing the technical classification analysis that supports the legal submissions.
GST refund claims — for export refunds (IGST paid on exports or zero-rated supplies), inverted duty structure refunds, and excess balance in the electronic cash ledger — are frequently rejected on technical grounds: incorrect filing, documentary deficiency, or a determination that the supply does not qualify for zero-rating. GP challenges refund rejections at the First Appellate Authority and GSTAT — demonstrating the legal and factual basis for the refund claim, addressing the grounds of rejection, and where necessary filing a writ petition in the High Court where the rejection is without jurisdiction or contrary to a binding GST Council circular.
Under Section 112(9) of the CGST Act, the GSTAT may stay the recovery of the amount due on the appeal to the extent it considers appropriate — in addition to the mandatory pre-deposit already paid. Where the demand is large, the commercial impact of full recovery during the appeal period is significant. GP applies for stay of recovery at GSTAT on the basis of the prima facie strength of the appeal, the financial position of the taxpayer, and the disproportionate impact of immediate recovery. Before GSTAT was operational, GP obtained stays of recovery in High Court writ proceedings — and continues to do so where the matter is before the High Court or where GSTAT has not yet constituted the relevant bench.
Thousands of GST matters were filed as writ petitions in the High Courts during the period when GSTAT was not operational. Many of these matters are pending, and taxpayers face the risk of their petitions being dismissed for failure to exhaust the GSTAT remedy. The Finance Act 2023 and the GST Appellate Tribunal Rules 2023 contain transitional provisions allowing taxpayers with pending High Court writ petitions to file appeals before GSTAT within a specified period. GP reviews pending writ petitions for transitional applicability, advises clients on whether to withdraw the writ and file before GSTAT (to avoid dismissal on exhaustion grounds), and manages the transition from the writ forum to GSTAT without losing the benefit of any interim stay that was obtained in the High Court.
Anti-profiteering proceedings under Section 171 of the CGST Act — where the National Anti-Profiteering Authority (NAA) or the Competition Commission of India (which took over NAA's functions from December 2022) determines that a supplier has not passed on the benefit of GST rate reductions or ITC to the consumer — follow a separate appellate track. The appellate forum for anti-profiteering orders is the High Court, not GSTAT. GP represents taxpayers in anti-profiteering proceedings before the CCI (in its anti-profiteering capacity) and challenges anti-profiteering orders in the High Court — addressing both the legal framework for the benefit-passing obligation and the methodology for computing the alleged undue benefit retained.
GST demands under Section 73 (without fraud) attract a penalty of 10% of the tax. Demands under Section 74 (fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts) attract a penalty of 100% of the tax. The distinction between Section 73 and Section 74 is therefore financially critical — a demand re-characterised from Section 73 to Section 74 multiplies the penalty by ten. GP challenges the invocation of Section 74 at the adjudication stage and on appeal — demonstrating that the taxpayer's conduct was not fraudulent, that the error was a bona fide difference of legal interpretation, and that the department has not discharged its burden of establishing the elements of fraud or wilful misstatement that justify the higher section.
GST disputes are won or lost at the transaction structuring and compliance stage — long before the show cause notice arrives. A taxpayer whose GST advisory and GST litigation are handled by different firms faces the risk that the positions are inconsistent: the advisory team structured the transaction one way, the litigation team is arguing it differently. GP's advisory team and litigation team are the same — the position taken in the return, in the departmental submissions, at the First Appellate Authority, and at GSTAT is consistent because it was developed by one team from the beginning.
GSTAT is a new tribunal. Its procedural practices, its approach to evidence, and its emerging jurisprudence on the key GST disputes are being established now — in the first wave of appeals filed before it. GP is among the early practitioners at GSTAT — filing appeals, attending hearings, and developing familiarity with the tribunal's processes as they evolve. For taxpayers with significant GST disputes, representation by a team that is building GSTAT practice in real time is materially different from representation by a team that is learning the forum from textbooks.
GP represents taxpayers across the complete GST appellate structure — from the First Appellate Authority (Commissioner Appeals) through GSTAT to the High Court under Article 226 where a question of law or a jurisdictional challenge survives the tribunal stage. For matters that were in the High Court before GSTAT became operational, GP manages the transition — maintaining the interim stay where possible, and filing before GSTAT without prejudice to the High Court proceedings. The GST litigation is a continuum, and continuity of representation across all levels produces better outcomes.
Acted for a Mumbai-based manufacturer against an ITC reversal demand of Rs.3.8 crore raised on the ground that the ITC claimed in GSTR-3B did not match the ITC reflected in GSTR-2A for a number of suppliers. GP produced before the First Appellate Authority the complete documentation for each disputed supplier — the GST-compliant tax invoice, the payment evidence, the supplier's GSTIN verification, and bank records confirming payment of consideration including the GST component. GP argued that the recipient's entitlement to ITC does not depend on the supplier's return filing behaviour, provided the conditions of Section 16 of the CGST Act are satisfied. The First Appellate Authority accepted the argument and deleted the demand in full, directing the department not to reverse ITC where the statutory conditions are met by the recipient.
Represented a Pune-based IT services company in a dispute where the GST department sought to reclassify the company's bundled supply of software licences and implementation services — which the company classified as a composite service supply taxable at 12% — as a mixed supply of goods and services, attracting the higher 18% rate applicable to software. The First Appellate Authority upheld the department's reclassification. GP filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, obtained a stay of recovery, and argued that the supply was a composite supply with the implementation service as the principal component. As GSTAT became operational, GP is managing the transition of the matter to GSTAT while preserving the High Court stay.
Acted for a Delhi trading company that had been issued a demand under Section 74 of the CGST Act — alleging suppression of facts in connection with a place of supply determination that affected whether CGST and SGST or IGST was payable on a series of inter-state transactions. The 100% penalty under Section 74 amounted to Rs.1.4 crore. GP established before the First Appellate Authority that the place of supply question was a genuine legal dispute on which there were conflicting advance rulings, that the company had disclosed all relevant facts in its returns, and that the conditions of Section 74 (fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression) were not met. The First Appellate Authority agreed, converted the demand from Section 74 to Section 73, and reduced the penalty to 10% — saving the company Rs.1.26 crore in penalty.
The GST litigation team appears before the First Appellate Authorities in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, and Chennai, before the GSTAT benches as they become operational, and before the Bombay and Delhi High Courts in Article 226 proceedings where the matter warrants direct High Court intervention.
For clients with significant pre-GSTAT High Court writ petitions, GP is managing the transition strategy — whether to continue in the High Court or to transition to GSTAT — on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the dispute and the strength of the High Court position.
The practical guide to filing before GSTAT — the pre-deposit requirement, the transitional provisions for High Court writs, and the appeal window that is now open for adverse First Appellate Authority orders.
Read Insight →The legal position on ITC mismatch demands has shifted significantly since Filco Trade Centre. A complete guide to the current legal framework and the documentary record that wins ITC mismatch appeals.
Read Insight →Whether you have a pending First Appellate Authority order, a High Court writ filed before GSTAT became operational, or a new GST demand you need to contest — speak to GP today. The three-month window for GSTAT is strict.