Resolving Jurisdictional Uncertainty: CBIC Streamlines Appeals and Reviews for DGGI-Initiated Cases

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) recently issued an important circular addressing procedural ambiguities in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) adjudication framework, specifically concerning show cause notices (SCNs) issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). This article analyzes CBIC Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST dated June 24, 2025 ("the Circular"), which clarifies the mechanisms for review, revision, and appeal of Orders-in-Original (OIOs) passed by Common Adjudicating Authorities (CAAs), thereby filling a significant procedural gap that has long challenged GST dispute resolution in India.

The DGGI conducts investigations into sophisticated tax evasion schemes across sectors such as banking, insurance, e-commerce, real estate, and hospitality, often involving multi-State transactions and high-value assessments. CAAs—designated Additional/ Joint Commissioners appointed under Notification No. 02/2017-CT dated June 19, 2017—adjudicate these SCNs with all-India jurisdiction to ensure consolidated handling of multi-jurisdictional cases.

While Notification No. 02/2017 and subsequent Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST dated December 4, 2024, defined the territorial jurisdiction and appointment of CAAs, they did not specify the procedural pathway for post-adjudication remedies such as review, revision, or appeal. This absence resulted in jurisdictional uncertainty and administrative inefficiencies in handling appeals and departmental reviews of OIOs passed by CAAs.

To address these challenges, the Circular delineates a clear, uniform framework for post-adjudication proceedings involving CAAs:

• Reviewing Authority (Section 107): The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax under whose administrative jurisdiction the CAA (Additional/ Joint Commissioner) is posted shall act as the reviewing authority for the OIOs passed by the CAA.

• Revisional Authority (Section 108): The same Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner will exercise revisional powers, consistent with Notification No. 05/2020-CT dated January 13, 2020, which authorizes Commissioners to revise decisions of subordinate officers.

• Appeal Forum: Appeals against the OIOs passed by CAAs will lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) having territorial jurisdiction over the Commissionerate where the CAA is posted. This departs from basing jurisdiction on the location or GSTIN of the taxpayer, instead tying appellate jurisdiction to the territorial nexus of the CAA.

• Departmental Representation: The Principal Commissioner/ Commissioner, who acts as the reviewing/ revisional authority, will also represent the department in appeal proceedings. They may delegate subordinate officers to file and pursue departmental appeals.

To summarise: 

The Circular explicitly allows the reviewing and revisional authorities to seek inputs and comments from the concerned DGGI formation before rendering decisions on OIOs, thereby ensuring that technical and investigative insights are adequately considered in post-adjudication remedies.

Resolving Procedural Uncertainty and Delays

Before this Circular, the absence of procedural clarity on who could review, revise, or appeal CAA decisions caused ambiguity, particularly in multi-jurisdictional cases. Taxpayers faced difficulty in identifying the correct forum for appeal, and departments encountered challenges in the timely filing of appeals or revisions. By anchoring review, revision, and appeal responsibilities to the administrative Commissionerate overseeing the CAA, CBIC has introduced a logical and administratively coherent structure that minimizes jurisdictional conflicts.

Strengthening GST Enforcement and Appeals Framework

This procedural clarity enhances accountability by ensuring a defined chain of command for adjudication, review and appeals. It facilitates more timely resolution of disputes, reducing litigation risks due to technical objections related to jurisdiction. Moreover, the formal mechanism for departmental representation and consultation with DGGI formations improves the quality of appellate proceedings and supports a balanced enforcement environment.

Alignment with Existing Legal Provisions

The Circular aligns with the appeal and revision provisions under Sections 107 and 108 of the CGST Act, 2017, and integrates Notification No. 05/2020-CT, which empowers Principal Commissioners/ Commissioners as revisional authorities.

Predictability: Taxpayers facing DGGI investigations now have clarity on the appellate forums and review mechanisms post-adjudication, enabling better management of compliance timelines and legal remedies.

Efficiency: Reduced jurisdictional ambiguity will accelerate dispute resolution and limit unnecessary procedural delays.

Clear Strategy for Appeals: Taxpayers will know the precise authorities involved in review, revision, and appeal processes related to DGGI cases adjudicated by CAAs.

Improved Coordination: The mechanism for consulting DGGI inputs during reviews fosters better coordination between investigative and adjudicating wings, which legal professionals can leverage to strengthen case strategies.

While the Circular address jurisdictional concerns, practically at present, the individual OIOs are being uploaded in DRC-07 under the GSTIN of all the States for which the demand has been confirmed. As a result, there remains practical uncertainty regarding how the pre-deposit payment is to be made in view of the appeal being filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) of a different jurisdiction (i.e., where the CAA is posted). Clarification from the authorities on this procedural gap would be welcome.

CBIC’s Circular No. 250/07/2025-GST is a positive step towards enhancing the predictability, transparency, and efficiency of GST dispute resolution, thereby benefiting taxpayers, tax authorities, and legal practitioners alike. As the GST regime evolves, such reforms will be critical to sustaining a robust and fair indirect tax administration framework in India.

About the authors: Stella Joseph is a Partner; Anushree Kothari is a Senior Associate and Falguni Gupta is an Associate with Economic Laws Practice.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s). The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.