The GSTAT Surat Bench has dismissed a Revenue appeal against the dropping of a penalty of Rs. 22,155 by the Appellate Authority (which had extended the benefit of Section 128A), holding that the appeal fell below the Rs. 20 lakh monetary threshold prescribed in CBIC Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST dated 26.06.2024, and that the Department had failed to establish that any of the six prescribed exclusions applied. The ruling by Members Sanjaykumar Dwivedi (JM) and Rameshkumar Hadvani (TM) in APL/61/SRT/2026 (Assistant Commissioner CGST Vadodara-II v. Rutu Chemicals, decided 29.09.2026, Final Order No. GUJ/SRT/001/2026) is the first reported final order of the GSTAT Surat Bench and provides detailed analysis of the exclusion clauses under paragraph 4 of the Circular.
The Department’s sole ground was that the order was ‘contrary to law’, and at hearing the Superintendent argued that the residuary exclusion (‘Any other issue, which is recurring in nature and/or involves interpretation’) was attracted. The Tribunal rejected this, holding: (a) the clause cannot be read so widely as to make the circular virtually ineffective and purposeless; (b) most disputes reaching the Tribunal involve interpretation of some provision, so need for interpretation alone is insufficient; (c) the guiding principle is impact on revenue interests; (d) the Department had not stated that the issue is actually recurring or involved in several pending cases; (e) while Section 128A at large has nationwide implication, the narrow question posed (whether relief can be granted in appeal without the prescribed application) was not shown to have cascading effect. The Tribunal also noted the safeguard built into Section 120 that non-filing of appeals shall not amount to acquiescence, and declined to express any opinion on the substantive question.
- 2026-juristway.com-2770-GSTAT(Surat)-GST | GSTAT Surat Bench | APL/61/SRT/2026 (Final Order No. GUJ/SRT/001/2026) | 29.09.2026
