Early Hearing Granted by GSTAT for Refund Appeals Citing Severe

Early Hearing Granted by GSTAT for Refund Appeals Citing Severe Financial Hardship and Pendency

Issue

Whether interlocutory applications seeking early hearing of multiple pending refund appeals before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) are maintainable and fit to be allowed when denial of refunds causes severe financial prejudice and impacts business cash flows.

Facts

The applicants filed 21 appeals before the GSTAT seeking statutory refunds.
Interlocutory applications for early hearing were filed, citing severe financial hardship, cash flow constraints, and substantial amounts blocked due to pending litigation.
Each application was supported by an affidavit sworn by an authorized signatory and satisfied all prescribed particulars required under the GSTAT format for early hearing.
The Revenue stated it had no objection to the early hearing of the matters while explicitly reserving its rights on the merits of the appeals.
The applicants relied on judicial precedents to substantiate their prayer for priority listing and early disposal.

Decision

The Tribunal examined the records and submissions, finding that all procedural prerequisites for filing early hearing applications were duly satisfied [Para 7].
The applicants established a valid and sufficient case demonstrating severe financial prejudice to warrant priority listing [Para 7].
The interlocutory applications for early hearing were allowed and disposed of in favour of the assessee [Para 7].

Key Takeaways

Financial Hardship as Ground for Priority: Severe financial stress and severe cash flow disruption caused by blocked refunds constitute valid grounds for seeking early hearing before GSTAT under Section 112 read with Section 111.
Procedural Compliance Mandate: Applications for early hearing must strictly conform to prescribed GSTAT formats, supported by valid affidavits executed by authorized signatories detailing the precise reasons for priority listing.
No-Objection by Revenue: A no-objection stance from the department facilitates accelerated listing without prejudicing the Revenue’s right to contest the substantive merits of the refund during the main hearing.

GOODS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY , KOLKATA BENCH

Lux Industries Ltd.

Commissioner State Tax^*

S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY, Judicial Member
and Bijoy Kumar Kar, Technical Member

INTL.APPL Nos. 1 to 21 (KLK) of 2026

AUGUST 25, 2026

Rakesh Goel, Charted Accountant for the Appellant. A.K. Basu and Ms. Jhumpa Paul, Additional Commissioner for the Respondent.

ORDER

S.G. Chattopadhyay, Judicial Member.- Since the parties and the subject matter of the applications are same the batch of these 21 (twenty-one) Interlocutory Applications seeking early hearing of as many as 21 (twenty one) Appeals filed under sub section (1) of Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short CGST ACT 2017) have been taken up together for hearing and disposal.

2. We have heard Mr. Rakesh Goel, Charted Accountant, appearing for the applicants of all these 21 Interlocutory Applications. We have also heard Mr. A K Basu and Ms. Jhumpa Paul, both Additional Commissioners, State GST for the respondent.

3. As regards the need of early hearing, Mr. Goel, Authorized Representative of the Applicant contends that the Applicants, herein, have filed as many as 21 appeals before this tribunal under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 claiming refund involving a huge sum of money and the pendency of such Appeals is likely to prejudice the financial interest of the Appellant. Mr. Goel therefore, urges this tribunal, to hear those Appeals on priority basis for ends of justice.

4. Mr. A K Basu and Ms. Jhumpa Paul, Additional Commissioners, representing the respondent submit that, in so far as the prayer of early hearing is concerned, the respondent does not have any objection if the tribunal so decides in view of the subject matter in dispute in the Appeals. The respondent, however seeks to the reserve the right to contest the appeals on merit.

5. We have found that each of the 21 Interlocutory Applications have been supported by affidavit sworn by the Authorized Signatory of the Applicants and the applications include all the information prescribed in GSTAT FORM – 01 in terms of Rule 29 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 2025.

6. We have gone through the contents of the Interlocutory Applications. The appellants have claimed that they are entitled to statutory refund which have been denied to them by the respondent (the Revenue hereafter) for reasons which are untenable in the eye of Law. The Authorized Representative of the applicant have taken us to various judicial pronouncements covering the issue of refund. As discussed, the appellants have contended that if their Appeals claiming refund are not heard on priority basis, they are likely to suffer from huge financial loss.

7. We have appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and considered the submissions of the representatives of the parties. We have also examined the records available us. We are of the view that the applicants have made out a good case for early hearing of their Appeals. The Interlocutory Applications for early hearing, are therefore, allowed and disposed of. List all the following 21 (twenty-one) Appeals together after three weeks for hearing.

8. APL/140/KLK/2026, APL/141/KLK/2026, APL/142/KLK/2026, APL/143/KLK/2026, APL/144/KLK/2026, APL/145/KLK/2026, APL/146/KLK/2026, APL/147/KLK/2026, APL/148/KLK/2026, APL/149/KLK/2026, APL/150/KLK/2026, APL/151/KLK/2026, APL/152/KLK/2026, APL/153/KLK/2026, APL/154/KLK/2026, APL/155/KLK/2026, APL/156/KLK/2026, APL/157/KLK/2026, APL/158/KLK/2026, APL/159/KLK/2026 and APL/160/KLK/2026.