The Tribunal held that permission to file an appeal and compliance with the monetary-limit policy are separate matters, and that the Revenue must specifically plead and prove a recognised exception to justify departmental litigation below the prescribed threshold.
The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ghaziabad Bench, has dismissed a departmental appeal at the admission stage itself on the ground that the disputed amount of ₹16,23,766 fell below the ₹20 lakh monetary limit prescribed by the Commissioner of State Tax, Uttar Pradesh, and the Revenue had failed to establish any recognised exception to that limit [Uttam Kumar Tiwari v. M/s. Home Essentials].
The First Appellate Authority had set aside a penalty of ₹16,23,766 imposed under Section 122 along with a fine of ₹2,00,000 under Section 130 of the SGST Act in a stock discrepancy case. The Department challenged the order before the Tribunal under Section 112(3) of the UPGST Act. The Tribunal, however, declined to examine the merits and addressed the threshold question of maintainability first, framing seven distinct issues for determination regarding the applicability of the monetary limit.
The Bench of Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi (Judicial Member) and Sungita Sharma (Technical Member) undertook a comprehensive analysis of the monetary-limit framework. The Tribunal noted that Circular No. 2425008 dated 05.07.2024 prescribes a ₹20 lakh threshold for departmental appeals before the GSTAT, subject to specified exceptions such as where a provision has been held unconstitutional, where the issue involves recurring questions of law, where adverse costs have been imposed, or where the Commissioner specifically exercises residual power to contest in the interest of justice or revenue. The Tribunal drew a sharp distinction between the Commissioner's authorisation to file an appeal under Section 112(3) and compliance with the conditions governing that appeal under Section 120. It held that an authorisation to file does not by itself establish an exception to the monetary limit, and that a bare statement of Commissioner's permission cannot replace actual compliance with the litigation policy.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Vikram Cement (2026) and S.R.M.B. Dairy Farming, the Tribunal emphasised that the monetary-limit circular applies to pending appeals as well and that repeated government litigation contributes to the mounting number of pending cases. The decision establishes an important procedural precedent: where the disputed amount is below the prescribed limit, the Revenue bears the burden of specifically identifying the applicable exception, stating the facts supporting it, and producing material showing that the Commissioner exercised the residual power in the particular case with recorded reasons. General approval or routine authorisation cannot serve as a substitute, failing which the appeal cannot be admitted for adjudication on merits.
2026-juristway.com-2834-GSTAT(Ghaziabad)-GST | GSTAT Ghaziabad | APL/D74/GZB/2026 | 06.10.2026
