Jurisdiction of Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal: Statutory framework and early judicial signals

Various State Benches of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘GSTAT’) have recently become operational, and questions relating to jurisdiction between the Principal Bench and the State Benches have begun to arise in practice. While Section 109 of the CGST Act specifies certain categories of cases to be dealt with exclusively by the Principal Bench, early orders of the Principal Bench indicate that jurisdictional issues are not always straightforward.

The very first case to be decided by GSTAT was by the Principal Bench in Sterling & Wilson Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Odisha[1], the Principal Bench entertained and decided an appeal even though the dispute did not fall within any category notified for exclusive Principal Bench jurisdiction. 

In contrast, in Manobendra Ghoshal v. Additional Commissioner of CGST[2], the Principal Bench chose not to assume jurisdiction and instead directed transfer of the appeal to the State Bench. 

These differing approaches have brought renewed attention to the scope and ambit of the Principal Bench’s jurisdiction under Section 109 of the CGST Act and warrant a closer examination. 

Statutory scheme under Section 109

As per the provisos to Section 109(5), the following matters are to be heard only by Principal Bench:

1. Cases where any issue relates to place of supply,
2. Appeals relating to anti‑profiteering under Section 171, and
3. Such other cases or classes of cases as may be notified by the Central Government.

In exercise of this power, the Central Government issued a Notification dated 17 September 2025[3], specifying the following cases or classes of cases to be heard exclusively by the Principal Bench:

1. Cases pending before two or more State Benches, where the President is satisfied that an identical question of law is involved;
2. Cases involving one or more issues covered under Section 14 [issues pertaining to Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Services] or Section 14A [Specified actionable claims like online money gaming supplied by a person located outside taxable territory to a person in taxable territory] of the IGST Act, 2017;
3. Cases involving one or more issues covered under Section 20 of the CGST Act, 2017 [Input Service Distributor].

A collective reading of Section 109(5), its provisos, and the Notification dated 17 September 2025, establishes with clarity which categories of cases must exclusively be heard by the Principal Bench.

At the same time, it is important to note that the section only provides those categories of matters which cannot be heard by State Bench and can only be decided by the Principal Bench. In other words, the law does not expressly state that Principal Bench cannot hear matters which otherwise pertain to a State Bench.

Honourable Bombay High Court’s Judgement in V.S. Products

The jurisdiction issue in case of GSTAT was first examined by the Bombay High Court in V.S. Products.

In that case, the State Bench was notified but was not functional due to non‑appointment of Members. The Department argued that since the case was not related to place of supply, the appeal could not be filed before the Principal Bench.

The High Court rejected this argument and held that:

• The assessee cannot be left without an appellate remedy.
• In absence of a functional State Bench, the appeal can be filed before the Principal Bench.
• Once the State Bench becomes operational, the matter may be transferred.

This judgement treated the Principal Bench as a forum of necessity, to ensure that the right of appeal is not defeated due to administrative reasons.

Approach of the Principal Bench in case of Sterling & Wilson’s Judgement

In Sterling & Wilson, the Principal Bench followed V.S. Products and assumed jurisdiction. 

Here, it is pertinent to note that the Orissa State Bench was not functioning when the issue came up before the Principal Bench. This indicates that the Principal Bench assumed jurisdiction and entertained an appeal where the State Bench was not effectively available.

Transfer of appeal instead of assuming jurisdiction by the Principal Bench

Another order on this issue is Manobendra Ghoshal, passed by the Principal Bench of GSTAT on 8 April 2026.

In this case, the Appellant chose the option of Principal Bench while filing Appeal online in Form APL‑05.

The Principal Bench transferred the case of State Bench noting that:

• The dispute did not relate to place of supply or any issue which is to be dealt exclusively by the Principal Bench under Section 109, and
• The Appellant had erroneously selected the Principal Bench option while filing the appeal.

Here, it is pertinent to note that the Jurisdictional State Bench was Delhi which was functioning when the case came up before the Principal Bench.

These decisions therefore leave open an important practical question:

Though the members have been notified for all the benches, few benches are yet to commence operations for the lack of infrastructure or other reasons as may be. 

The question may assume significance in matters such as refund disputes, cases involving blockage of credit ledgers, freezing of bank accounts, revocation-related proceedings, or cancellation of registration other situations where delay in availability of the appellate forum may cause real prejudice to the taxpayer.

The position, therefore, appears to remain open and may require further judicial or appellate clarity as more such cases arise.

[The authors are Associate Partner and Associate, respectively, in Indirect Tax practice at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys, Nagpur]

[1] 2026-VIL-06-GSTAT-DEL-PB [Appeal No. APL/1/PB/2026 dated 11 February 2026]

[2] 2026-VIL-13-GSTAT-DEL-PB [APL/8/PB/2026]

[3] Notification on Cases to be Heard Exclusively by the Principal Bench of GST Applicable to Specific Classes of Cases under CGST and IGST Acts - S.O. 4219(E). - Central GST (CGST)