Thousands of appeals pile up as the tribunal barely disposes cases
The newly formed Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), one of the most anticipated institutions under the GST regime, is showing signs of a severe operational crisis. Exclusive Right to Information (RTI) data shows that it has disposed of just 11 cases despite receiving 73,246 appeals as of August 12 since its operationalisation in January 2026. The tribunal is already struggling under the weight of a huge number of appeals despite the appointment of a top-heavy administration comprising one president, 41 vice-presidents and 98 members. With the annual expenditure on members and planned Benches potentially exceeding ₹130 crore, the tribunal’s performance remains abysmally poor.
The RTI information further reveals that all 11 cases disposed of so far in the history of GSTAT were decided during the six months from January to July 30 this year. Before that, there had been no disposal at all.
The GSTAT was conceived under the Central GST Act, 2017, and corresponding state and Union Territory laws as the principal appellate forum for GST disputes. For nearly eight years, taxpayers, trade bodies and tax professionals had demanded its operationalisation, forcing litigants to approach high courts directly in its absence. When the tribunal finally became operational, it was hailed as a major reform that would bring specialised, faster and more uniform adjudication of GST disputes. Its early performance, however, tells a very different story.
The figures raise uncomfortable questions about whether the tribunal, created to speed up GST dispute resolution and ease pressure on the higher judiciary, is equipped to cope with what experts fear could eventually swell into more than five lakh appeals. The numbers are particularly striking because tribunal members had begun joining as early as September 2025, providing several months to establish procedures and commence hearings.
According to RTI information, this year, between January and 30 July, 23 GSTAT Benches, out of a total of 42, across the country received 22,237 appeals. Of these, only 298 cases were listed for hearing, 201 were transferred and a mere 11 were finally disposed of.
The numbers reveal the scale of the problem. Of the 22,237 appeals received by the 23 Benches, fewer than 1.3 per cent were listed for hearing. Of those listed, 67 per cent were transferred to other Benches. The number of appeals finally disposed of was just 11, representing an alarming 0.04 per cent of the total filings.
The challenge may only be beginning. The Union revenue secretary recently informed Parliament that the government expected around 3.19 lakh appeals to reach the tribunal. GST portal data already indicates
that 73,246 appeals have been filed, while some estimates suggest that the eventual litigation load could exceed five lakh cases.
Unless disposal rates improve substantially, legal experts warn that the tribunal could face a backlog crisis even before it becomes fully operational nationwide.
The issue is not merely judicial but also financial. Each GSTAT member reportedly costs the exchequer around ₹55-60 lakh annually. With nearly 80 members, the annual expenditure on members alone exceeds ₹40 crore. Each tribunal Bench, including infrastructure, premises and staff, is estimated to cost around ₹2.15 crore a year. Across the planned 42 Benches, the annual expenditure on the Benches alone could exceed ₹90 crore. Taken together, the estimated costs of members and the planned Benches represent a substantial financial commitment by the exchequer.
While few dispute the need for a robust appellate mechanism, the figures raise inevitable questions about value for public money when case disposal remains negligible. Experts argue that GSTAT should publish regular data on appeals filed, scrutiny completed, cases pending, hearings listed and final disposals to enable greater public accountability.
The tribunal’s difficulties also reflect a larger problem within India’s tax administration. The 30th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, released in March 2026, quoted the revenue secretary as stating that the department succeeds in only about 20 per cent of cases before the CESTAT, 53 per cent before the High Courts and 52 per cent before the Supreme Court. This means that 80 per cent of litigation before CESTAT did not survive first judicial scrutiny, raising questions about whether businesses, big and small, are being forced into avoidable litigation.
The figures suggest that a significant proportion of tax litigation ultimately fails, fuelling criticism that many disputes arise because adjudicating authorities fail to follow settled legal precedents. Tax professionals argue that unless avoidable litigation is curbed at the adjudication stage itself, GSTAT risks becoming another bottleneck rather than a solution.
Government lawyers have increasingly urged High Courts to direct litigants towards GSTAT on the ground that the statutory appellate remedy is now available. Legal experts, however, caution that operationalisation alone does not guarantee access to justice. “A tribunal’s credibility depends not merely on having Benches and members in
place but on its ability to deliver timely decisions,” said one senior indirect tax practitioner.
If current disposal rates continue while filings continue to rise, litigants may face years of delay before obtaining relief, undermining
one of the central promises of the GST regime: faster dispute resolution and greater ease of doing business.
The RTI data is expected to intensify demands for an institutional review of GSTAT’s functioning. Among the reforms being suggested are publication of regular performance statistics; case-management benchmarks and disposal targets; identification of procedural, technological and staffing bottlenecks; capacity planning for the anticipated surge in appeals; and greater judicial discipline at the adjudication stage to reduce unnecessary litigation.
For an institution created to unclog India’s GST dispute resolution system, the early numbers present a sobering reality. The tribunal was established to reduce delays, not become another source of them. If the present trajectory continues, GSTAT may find itself overwhelmed before it has had the opportunity to fulfil the promise on which it was founded.
