Eight appeals filed by MRF Limited before different State Benches of GSTAT transferred to the Principal Bench as they involve an identical question of law on refund of interest paid on electronic credit ledger: GSTAT Principal Bench

The President of the GSTAT, exercising powers under Section 109(5) of the CGST Act for the first time, held that where multiple appeals pending before different State Benches raise an identical question of law, they must be consolidated before the Principal Bench to prevent conflicting judgments.

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi, has allowed transfer applications filed by MRF Limited and directed that eight appeals pending before State Benches at Mumbai, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Patna, Jalandhar, Bengaluru, Indore and Kanpur be listed before a Division Bench of the Principal Bench, holding that all eight involve an identical question of law [MRF Limited v. CGST Commissioner, Mumbai Central Commissionerate and Others].

MRF Limited, a manufacturer of tyres, tubes and flaps, had paid differential GST at 28% on tyres and flaps when the rate on tubes was reduced to 18% with effect from 15 November 2017, and had also paid interest on the entire differential tax liability including the portion discharged through the electronic credit ledger. Following the retrospective substitution of the proviso to Section 50(1) by the Finance Act, 2021, which clarified that interest is payable only on the portion discharged through the electronic cash ledger, MRF filed refund applications across eight jurisdictions for the excess interest paid. While certain jurisdictions allowed the refund, eight applications were rejected and the rejections were upheld at the first appellate level. MRF appealed to the respective State Benches and simultaneously filed transfer applications before the Principal Bench.

Justice (Retd.) Dr. Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, President of the GSTAT, invoked the power under Section 109(5) of the CGST Act read with Notification No. S.O. 4219(E) dated 17 September 2025, which empowers the Principal Bench to hear cases involving identical questions of law pending before different State Benches. The President noted that the common question — whether MRF is entitled to refund of interest paid on the gross GST liability to the extent such interest was paid on the portion discharged through the electronic credit ledger, in light of the retrospective proviso to Section 50(1) — is identical across all eight appeals. The authorised representatives of five respondent states who appeared admitted that all appeals involve the same question of law. The remaining three respondents were held to have been duly served and the applications were taken up in their absence.

The order is significant as one of the first substantive exercises of the Principal Bench's transfer jurisdiction under Section 109(5), establishing that where an identical question of law is pending before multiple State Benches, consolidation before the Principal Bench is the appropriate course to prevent conflicting outcomes. For MRF and similarly situated manufacturers who have paid excess interest before the retrospective amendment to Section 50(1), the eventual decision on merits will have binding effect across all jurisdictions where the issue arises.

2026-juristway.com-2923-GSTAT(New Delhi)-GST  |  GSTAT Principal Bench, New Delhi  |    12.10.2026