Departmental appeal below Rs. 20 lakh monetary limit dismissed at threshold; bare statement of Commissioner's approval is not sufficient to establish an exception: GSTAT Ghaziabad

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and that the Revenue must specifically plead and establish a recognised exception to the monetary-limit policy — general authorisation cannot substitute for compliance.

In two separate departmental appeals, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, has dismissed the Revenue's appeals at the threshold for failure to comply with the binding monetary-limit policy prescribing Rs. 20,00,000 as the threshold for departmental appeals before the GSTAT [Sonia Sharma v. M/s Nayak Engineering] and [Assistant Commissioner MS-4 GZB v. Group of India Pride].

The Bench of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi (Judicial Member) and Sungita Sharma (Technical Member), relying upon the Supreme Court's rulings in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Commissioner of Commercial Tax v. Vikram Cement, laid down a comprehensive framework: once the disputed tax amount is shown to be below the prescribed monetary limit, the Revenue must identify the applicable exception, state the facts supporting it, and show the statutory or administrative basis for invoking it.

The Tribunal held that where the Revenue relies on the Commissioner's residual power to contest a matter in the interest of justice or revenue, it must produce the order or recorded opinion showing that the Commissioner exercised that power in the particular case. A bare statement that the appeal has been filed with the Commissioner's permission is not sufficient. Permission to file an appeal and compliance with the conditions governing that appeal are separate and distinct matters.

The Tribunal emphasised that government litigation uses judicial time, departmental resources, and public money. The monetary-limit policy is intended to ensure that the State litigates where the amount, legal significance, or a recognised exception justifies doing so. It also clarified that dismissal on monetary-limit grounds does not constitute acceptance of the legal position — Sections 120(2) and 120(3) of the UPGST Act expressly preserve the Revenue's position for future cases.

2026-juristway.com-2970-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST & 2026-juristway.com-2971-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST  |  GSTAT, Ghaziabad  |  APL/D94/GZB/2026 & connected  |  13.10.2026