The GSTAT Ernakulam Bench has delivered its inaugural final orders — three in a single sitting on 08.09.2026 — and all three address the same recurring issue: whether the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) can refer matters back to the adjudicating authority for verification instead of deciding the appeal on merits. In Commissioner of CGST & CE Kochi v. K.A. Traders (Final Order No. 01/EKM/KERALAM/2026), Commissioner v. Peechattu Glass World (Final Order No. 04), and a companion case, the Tribunal held that Section 107(11) expressly prohibits the appellate authority from remanding or referring matters back to the adjudicating authority for any reason.
The Tribunal's reasoning is comprehensive, drawing on decisions of multiple High Courts — Kronos Solutions (Allahabad HC, 2024), Anand and Anand (Allahabad HC, 2025 and 2026), Kanha Shree Steels (Allahabad HC, 2025), and Shyam Traders (Calcutta HC, 2026). Section 107(11) contemplates only three courses of action: confirm, modify, or annul the impugned order. Where the appellate authority needs further information, it is empowered to "cause such further inquiry as may be necessary" at its own level — but it cannot delegate that inquiry back to the very authority whose order is under appeal. The Tribunal characterised the JC (Appeals)' remand orders as "void, illegal and beyond jurisdiction" and directed fresh orders after conducting verification at the appellate level itself. These rulings will have immediate impact across Kerala, where remand orders by the JC (Appeals) have been a common feature of appellate practice.
2026-juristway.com-1191-GSTAT(Ernakulam)-GST | GSTAT Ernakulam | APL/11/ERN/2026 | Final Order No. 01/EKM/KERALAM/2026 | 08.09.2026