Introduction
The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (‘CBIC’) issued a Circular[i] establishing guidelines for the recovery of outstanding dues until the Goods and Services Tribunal Appellate Tribunal (‘Appellate Tribunal’) becomes operational, particularly in cases where the first appeal has been disposed of. The said Circular, while addressing concerns pertaining to the process of recovery in the absence of the Appellate Tribunal, clarifies the implementation procedures to ensure uniformity.
Brief Background
The Circular was issued after the CBIC received doubts regarding the recovery of dues under s. 78 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘Act’), once the demand has been confirmed by the first appellate authority, particularly when an appeal against such an order could not be filed under s. 112 of the Act due to the Appellate Tribunal not yet being constituted.
Key Points of the Circular
Payment of Pre-deposit by taxpayers: Taxpayers can make pre-deposit payments required for filing an appeal through the electronic liability register (ELL), which would stay the proceedings until the appeal is resolved.
Undertaking/Declaration Requirement: Taxpayers must submit an undertaking with the proper officer, committing to filing an appeal when the Appellate Tribunal becomes operational.
Procedure for Already Paid Amounts: Notification No. 12/2024-CT introduces Form GST DRC-03A, allowing taxpayers to adjust inadvertently paid amounts toward a demand. The application in Form GST DRC-03A can be filed electronically, and the amount will be adjusted as if it was paid toward the demand on the intimation date.
Current Limitations and Interim Measures: The functionality for filing Form GST DRC-03A is not yet available on the GST common portal. Until this functionality is enabled, taxpayers are advised to inform the proper officer, who will refrain from enforcing recovery.
Conclusion
The Circular provides comprehensive guidelines for recovering outstanding dues in the absence of an operational Appellate Tribunal. The Board recognises a taxpayer’s statutory right to appeal, which is evident through the contents of the aforementioned Circular. The Circular clarifies the process and introduces mechanisms such as Form GST DRC-03A, along with a stay on recovery proceedings until the Appellate Tribunal is operational. The Circular aligns with the statutory provisions for appeal and aims to ensure consistency and fairness in the recovery proceedings.
End Note
[i] No. 224/18/2024 dated 11.07.2024.
Authored by Pranav Dabas, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinion.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.