The GST Appellate Tribunal’s Thane and Ranchi Benches turned away departmental appeals involving small sums under the CBIC litigation circular, rejecting one claimed exclusion and leaving the other question open.
GSTAT Thane and GSTAT Ranchi have dismissed or disposed of departmental appeals below the ₹20 lakh limit in Circular No. 207/1/2024-GST dated 26 Jun 2024, issued under Section 120 of the CGST Act. GSTAT Thane held that the pendency of the Department’s petition before the Supreme Court in another case does not bring an appeal within the exclusions in paragraph 4 of the Circular. [Asish Kumar Pati v. Linde India Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3300-GSTAT(Thane)-GST; Anil Kumar Jha v. AK Traders & Co, 2026-juristway.com-3307-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST]
The Thane appeal was decided by Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial), and Prallhad S. Paranjape, Member (Technical), with Ramesh Nair writing the order. The Ranchi appeal was decided by Tushsar Kanti Satapathy, Member (Judicial), and Shri Kant Kishore Mishra, Member (Technical).
Linde India. The appeal involved ₹3,37,176, and no one appeared for the respondent. The Department’s representative relied on paragraph 4(vi) of the Circular, pointing out that on an identical issue the Department had petitioned the Supreme Court against the Bombay High Court’s judgment in Godrej Boyce (WP No. 3226 of 2019).
The Bench held that merely filing an appeal or petition before the Supreme Court in a different case cannot be construed as a uniform opinion of the Board, which must issue a specific circular guiding field formations if it wishes to contest an issue before higher forums. The Supreme Court had also granted no stay in that case. The appeal was dismissed on the monetary limit.
AK Traders & Co. The Revenue invoked an exclusion in the Circular to challenge a waiver of penalty, arguing that partial payment of interest before the notice did not satisfy Section 73(8). The respondent had paid the full tax and part of the interest through Form GST DRC‑03 before the show cause notice, following a recovery letter under Section 79. When the Bench found the disputed interest was only ₹10,321, the Department confirmed that it had since been paid.
The Bench found no infirmity in the first appellate order and disposed of the appeal in terms of the monetary limit in the Circular, keeping the question of law under Section 73(8) open for a more appropriate case.
2026-juristway.com-3300-GSTAT(Thane)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3307-GSTAT(Ranchi)-GST
