Allahabad HC Rejects Formalistic Affidavit on GST Appellate Tribunal Vacancies, Demands Post-Wise Compliance by September 2026

The Allahabad High Court found that 63 of 92 sanctioned posts in U.P.'s GST Appellate Tribunal remain vacant, and dismissed repeated circulars as insufficient compliance.

Justice Piyush Agrawal, sitting singly in Court No. 7 at the Allahabad High Court, on 19 August 2026 sharply rejected an affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, which had been placed on record to demonstrate that the GST Appellate Tribunals in Uttar Pradesh were fully functional. The court found that the affidavit disclosed the opposite: 63 of the 92 sanctioned posts across all levels of the Tribunal remain vacant, and the Union's response has amounted to little more than the issuance of successive circulars without any demonstrable follow-up. The court has now directed the Joint Secretary to file a fresh, comprehensive and specific affidavit before the next date of hearing fixed for 9 September 2026, covering each post and each bench individually, with a definite and time-bound schedule for filling vacancies.

The Vacancy Position Before the Court

The affidavit placed before the court set out the following factual position. For the GST Appellate Tribunal, State of Uttar Pradesh, 86 posts at various levels were sanctioned by an order dated 10 May 2024. A further 6 posts were sanctioned by an order dated 5 May 2026, bringing the total to 92 sanctioned posts. Of these 92 posts, only 29 have been filled. The process for filling a mere 6 more posts is stated to be underway. The remaining 63 posts are vacant with no concrete steps disclosed for their expeditious filling.

The affidavit attempted to explain the shortfall by noting that pursuant to a circular dated 14 September 2025, against 44 posts relating to the Benches in Uttar Pradesh, only 14 posts could be filled because adequate applications were not received. A further circular was issued on 14 August 2025, and yet another on 14 January 2026. The court observed that the chronology itself requires explanation, pointing out that the September 2025 circular is dated after the August 2025 circular in the affidavit's own account, raising questions about the sequence of events that the Union's counsel was unable to address satisfactorily.

Why Circulars Alone Do Not Constitute Compliance

Justice Agrawal held that the issuance of circulars and advertisements cannot, by itself, constitute compliance with the obligation to make a statutory appellate forum functional. The court identified several specific silences in the affidavit that prevented it from accepting the Union's position.

The affidavit did not disclose when, where and in what manner the vacancies were actually publicised. It did not state whether notices were uploaded on the official websites of the Central Board of Indirect Customs and Taxes, the Department of Revenue, the Commissioners of Commercial Tax of the State GST, or the Administrators of Union Territories. For the circular dated 14 January 2026, the affidavit failed to disclose what tangible steps followed after its issuance, how the response was monitored, how many applications were received, what scrutiny was undertaken, and what prevented the vacancies from being filled thereafter.

The court characterised the Union's approach as “formalistic compliance consisting merely of issuance of successive circulars.” It observed that such conduct defeats the purpose for which the GST Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and deprives litigants of an effective statutory appellate remedy. The court further remarked that the implementation by officers “reflects a lack of requisite and effective follow-up with an intent to defeat the very purpose of the Government.”

The Eight-Point Disclosure Required

Dissatisfied with the existing affidavit, the court directed the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi to file a fresh, comprehensive and specific affidavit — expressly not a general or evasive one — before 9 September 2026. The court specified eight categories of information that must be covered.

The affidavit must disclose the post-wise and bench-wise status of all 92 posts. It must identify which posts are presently vacant and the exact stage of the selection process for filling each such post. It must provide a date-wise account of action taken for every vacancy, naming the authority responsible. It must cover in full the steps taken pursuant to each of the three circulars dated 14 September 2025, 14 August 2025 and 14 January 2026. It must state the dates and manner in which advertisements and notices were uploaded or circulated on the relevant official websites and communicated to the concerned authorities. It must disclose the number of applications received against each post, the number scrutinised, and the present status of each selection process. It must detail all correspondence exchanged with the Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal and the respective benches concerning the vacancies. Finally, it must provide a clear, definite and time-bound schedule for filling the remaining vacancies.

The court additionally required the Joint Secretary to specifically disclose the reasons for the prolonged failure to fill the substantial vacancies and to state the steps proposed to ensure that the process does not remain confined to repeated issuance of advertisements without effective conclusion. The court was explicit that the affidavit must reflect actual action taken on the ground and not merely administrative assertions.

Warning of Personal Appearance

Justice Agrawal concluded with a clear warning: if the next affidavit also fails to satisfactorily disclose effective and time-bound progress, the court “shall be constrained to require the presence of the responsible officer and consider passing appropriate further orders.” This puts the Joint Secretary personally at risk of being required to appear before the court if the next affidavit repeats the shortcomings of the current one.

Outcome

The matter has been listed as fresh on 9 September 2026, along with a connected matter. The Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India is required to file the comprehensive affidavit before that date, covering all eight points directed by the court. The petitioner is represented by Dharmendra Kumar Tripathi and Vimal Chandra Pathak. The Union of India is represented by Shashi Prakash, ASGI, assisted by Krishna Agarwal. The State-respondents are represented by Ravi Shanker Pandey, ACSC.