Appeals Filed in Wrong Jurisdiction Due to Dept. Confusion Must Be Transferred, Not Rejected.

The Dispute: The “Common Order” Jurisdictional Trap

The Conflict: An insurance company received a single Common Order-in-Original from an Additional Commissioner. This order covered the insurer’s tax liabilities for multiple offices across India.

The Petitioner’s Action: For the portion of the demand related to their Odisha operations, they filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in Bhubaneswar, which is the local jurisdictional authority.
The Appellate Authority’s Rejection: The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal outright, claiming it lacked jurisdiction because the original order was passed by a central/different authority.
The “Mistake of Parties”: The court noted that there was significant confusion regarding Departmental instructions on where to file appeals against such “Composite/Common Orders.”

The Judicial Verdict: Restoration and Transmission

The High Court ruled in favour of the Assessee (Remanded), ensuring that the appeal is heard rather than dismissed on a technicality:

1. Setting Aside the Rejection

The Court held that rejecting an appeal solely on a jurisdictional error—especially when caused by a “mistake of the opposite parties” (the Department’s own complex structure)—was unsustainable. It quashed the rejection order to keep the taxpayer’s rights alive.

2. Mandatory Transmission

Instead of asking the petitioner to start from scratch and risk being time-barred, the Court directed the Bhubaneswar Commissioner (Appeals) to restore the appeal and transmit (transfer) it to the “appropriate appellate authority” concerned.

3. Protection of Merits

The Court clarified that it was not touching the merits of the tax demand. The goal was simply to ensure that the “Gatekeeper” (Appellate Authority) opens the door so the case can be heard in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways for Multi-State Businesses in 2026

Common Orders vs. Multiple Appeals: When a single order covers multiple GSTINs across India, the “Proper Officer” for the appeal is usually determined by the location of the officer who passed the original order. However, if the demand is split, administrative confusion is common.
The “Non-Fault” Principle: Use this judgment to argue that if the Department’s own internal structure is confusing, the taxpayer should not be penalized for filing in the “wrong” regional office. The Department has an obligation to transfer the file rather than reject it.
Section 107 Limitation: Filing in the wrong jurisdiction can be a major risk if the 3-month limitation period expires. This court order protects the petitioner by “restoring” the original filing date, effectively nullifying any delay caused by the jurisdictional transfer.
Faceless Appeal Context: As of 2026, most appeals are being routed through a “Faceless” portal. Ensure that when you select the “Jurisdictional Office” during the online filing of Form GST APL-01, it matches the office of the Adjudicating Authority mentioned in the DRC-07, regardless of where your business is physically located.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd.

Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Appeal),^*

Harish Tandon, CJ.
and Murahari Sri Raman, J.

WP (C) No. 24610 of 2025

MARCH 19, 2026

Ashok Kumar Mohanty, Adv. for the Petitioner. Prasenjeet Mohapatra, Sr. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Against the appellate order dated 30^th May, 2025 vide Annexure-9 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeal), Bhubaneswar, rejecting the appeal on the ground “filed in wrong jurisdiction”, the petitioner, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, has come up before this Court invoking provisions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 28^th January, 2025 passed under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (collectively, “the GST Act”) by the Additional Commissioner (Annexure-6) and summary of order dated 4^th February, 2025 (Annexure-7) passed by the Commissioner, Bhubaneswar IV Circle, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act before the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeal), Bhubaneswar.

2.1. It is further submitted that the Order-in-Original vide Annexure-6 was passed in common against the Life Insurance Corporation of India having its offices at different parts of this country. So far as it related to the State of Odisha is concerned, the petitioner filed an appeal at Bhubaneswar on 27^th April, 2025 under Section 107 of the GST Act. It is emphatically urged that the said appeal came to be rejected on 30^th May, 2025 indicating “filed in wrong jurisdiction” without any application of mind. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of rejection is liable to be set aside.

3. On the last occasion, on such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Standing Counsel sought for accommodation to enable him to obtain instruction in this matter.

4. Today, when the matter was taken up, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department-opposite parties furnished written instructions dated 17^th March, 2026 received from the Assistant Commissioner (Law), GST and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, wherein at paragraph-3, it has been reflected as follows:

“3. O/O the Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Central Excise & Customs, Bhubaneswar, vide email dated 16.03.2026 (copy of the mail printout is enclosed) stated as under:

“As on the date of rejection of the appeals, there was no mechanism for this office to transmit appeals filed against CAA Orders to the correct jurisdiction.

However, DG-Systems, Chennai have issued one advisory in this regard in July, 2025.

The appellant may be requested to re-file the appeals on the system and in terms of the Advisory; this office shall take steps to have the appeals transmitted to the correct jurisdiction.”

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department-opposite parties.

6. On perusal of record and after going through the written instructions so furnished by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, it is perceived that in rejecting the appeal there was mistake on the part of the opposite parties and the petitioner is advised to re-file the appeal. Accordingly, without touching the merit of the matter, this Court disposes of this writ petition by setting aside the order dated 30^th May, 2025 passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise (Appeal), Bhubaneswar (Annexure-9). Consequently, the appeal is restored to its original file and it is directed that the appeal as filed by the petitioner shall be transmitted to the appropriate appellate authority concerned within a period of fifteen days from date and the appellate authority shall proceed with the appeal in accordance with law.

7. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.