Temporary Identification Number for Unregistered Persons Filing Appeals before GSTAT : A Procedural Vacuum under the GST Law

Introduction

The rollout of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has undoubtedly strengthened the appellate framework under GST. However, with the shift towards mandatory electronic filing of appeals, a practical issue has emerged for a class of litigants who are not registered under GST.

The issue is simple yet significant.

An unregistered person may be subjected to proceedings under the CGST Act and may even be saddled with substantial penalties under provisions such as Section 122 or Section 122(1A). Such proceedings may be conducted entirely offline since the person does not possess a GST registration.

When such person wishes to challenge the order before the GST Appellate Tribunal, the GSTAT portal requires login through a GSTIN, Temporary Identification Number (Temporary ID), UIN or ENR.

The obvious question is:

Who will generate the Temporary Identification Number?

Surprisingly, despite the introduction of Rule 16A of the CGST Rules and the operationalization of GSTAT, there is no clear statutory provision, notification, circular or Standard Operating Procedure identifying the authority responsible for issuing such Temporary ID.

This article examines this procedural gap with reference to the statutory provisions and the recent judgment of the Telangana High Court in Bharat Kumar Agarwal v. Joint Commissioner (AE).

A Practical Situation

Consider the following situation.

Mr. X is not registered under GST.

He is neither a proprietor nor a partner in any registered concern.

However, the department alleges that he knowingly assisted a registered taxpayer in wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit and accordingly initiates proceedings under Section 122 of the CGST Act.

Since Mr. X is not registered:

• Show Cause Notice is issued manually.

• Reply is filed manually.

• Adjudication proceedings are conducted offline.

• Order-in-Original is passed offline.

• First appeal under Section 107 is also filed physically and decided offline.

Thereafter, Mr. X intends to file a second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112.

The GSTAT portal, however, requires a Temporary ID.

Mr. X has no GST registration and no login credentials.

This raises an important procedural question.

Which authority should generate the Temporary Identification Number?

Statutory Right of Appeal

Section 112 of the CGST Act provides the right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

The provision nowhere states that only registered persons can file appeals.

Any "person aggrieved" by an appellate order is entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdiction.

Therefore, an unregistered person upon whom an independent liability has been imposed equally possesses the statutory right to approach the Tribunal.

The challenge lies not in the substantive law but in the procedural mechanism.

Rule 16A : Grant of Temporary Identification Number

Recognizing situations where persons not liable to registration may nevertheless be required to interact with the GST system, the Government inserted Rule 16A in the CGST Rules through Notification No. 07/2025-Central Tax dated 23 January 2025.

Rule 16A reads:

"Where a person is not liable to registration under the Act but is required to make any payment under the provisions of the Act, the proper officer may grant the said person a temporary identification number and issue an order in Part B of FORM GST REG-12."

The Rule establishes three important principles:

• the applicant need not be liable for GST registration;

• a Temporary Identification Number can be granted; and

• such Temporary ID is granted by the "Proper Officer."

However, the Rule immediately raises another question.

Who is the Proper Officer for this purpose?

Neither Rule 16A nor any notification specifies the competent authority in the context of GSTAT appeals.

Telangana High Court Judgment

Bharat Kumar Agarwal v. Joint Commissioner (AE)

Writ Petition Nos. 9166 and 9354 of 2026

Decision dated 08 April 2026

The Telangana High Court has now become the first Court to directly deal with the practical difficulties faced by an unregistered person in filing an appeal before GSTAT. Judgment on Indian Kanoon

Facts of the Case

The department issued a common Show Cause Notice against:

• M/s Sugna Metal Limited; and

• its Managing Director, Mr. Bharat Kumar Agarwal.

After adjudication, a composite Order-in-Original dated 30 December 2025 was passed.

The order confirmed:

• tax demand,

• interest,

• penalty under Section 74 against the company, and

• separate penalty under Section 122(1A) upon the Managing Director personally.

The Managing Director was not registered under GST.

Therefore, although an independent penalty had been imposed upon him, he had no GSTIN through which he could access the GSTAT portal.

Problem before the Court

The petitioners argued that:

• independent liability necessarily gives rise to an independent right of appeal;

• Rule 18(3) of the GSTAT Procedure Rules contemplates separate appeals by separate persons;

• however, the Managing Director could not file his appeal because he had no GST registration.

Consequently, despite possessing a statutory right of appeal, he had no practical mechanism to exercise it.

Stand of the Department

During the hearing, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC informed the Court that Rule 16A permits grant of a Temporary Identification Number.

The department further stated that:

• the Managing Director could apply physically for a Temporary Registration/Temporary Identification Number before the Anti-Evasion Officer;

• separate DRC-07 summaries would be issued, one for the company and another for the Managing Director.

This submission substantially addressed the procedural concern before the Court.

Findings of the High Court

The High Court accepted the above course and issued several important directions.

1. Independent Right of Appeal

The Court held that once an independent liability is imposed upon the Managing Director, he is entitled to challenge that liability independently.

His appellate remedy cannot depend upon the company's appeal.

2. Temporary Identification Number

The Court directed that the Managing Director should apply for a Temporary Registration/Temporary Identification Number.

The competent authority was directed to issue the same within one week from receipt of the application.

3. Separate DRC-07

The Court directed the department to issue:

• one DRC-07 for the company; and

• another DRC-07 for the Managing Director.

This ensured that each aggrieved person possessed an independent appealable order.

4. Limitation

Recognizing that the absence of Temporary Registration could itself delay the filing of appeal, the Court held that limitation would commence only after issuance of the fresh DRC-07.

Thus, the taxpayer would not suffer because of administrative shortcomings.

What does the Judgment actually decide?

The judgment lays down several important principles.

• An unregistered person can independently challenge an order imposing liability.

• The absence of GST registration cannot defeat the statutory right of appeal.

• Temporary Identification should be made available to facilitate the appeal.

• Separate liabilities should ordinarily be reflected through separate DRC-07 summaries.

These principles significantly strengthen procedural fairness within the GST regime.

What the Judgment does NOT decide

While the judgment resolves the immediate dispute, it leaves one important issue unanswered.

The Court never identifies which authority is legally responsible for generating the Temporary Identification Number.

It merely records the department's statement that the Managing Director may apply physically before the Anti-Evasion Officer and directs the competent authority to issue the Temporary Identification Number.

Accordingly, the judgment cannot be read as declaring that:

• the adjudicating authority;

• the Show Cause Notice issuing authority;

• the appellate authority; or

• the jurisdictional Proper Officer

is exclusively responsible for issuing Temporary IDs.

That question still remains unanswered.

The Remaining Procedural Vacuum

Today, practitioners continue to face practical uncertainty.

Suppose proceedings have already concluded.

The Show Cause Notice issuing authority has completed its role.

The adjudicating authority has passed the order.

The first appellate authority has also decided the appeal.

The appellant now merely wants access to the GSTAT portal.

Who should issue the Temporary ID?

Possible answers include:

• the officer issuing the Show Cause Notice;

• the adjudicating authority;

• the appellate authority;

• the jurisdictional Proper Officer.

Unfortunately,

• the CGST Act is silent;

• the CGST Rules are silent;

• the GSTAT Procedure Rules are silent;

• no CBIC Circular addresses the issue; and

• no GSTN Standard Operating Procedure presently identifies the competent authority.

A Possible Interpretation

Rule 16A merely states that the Temporary Identification Number may be granted by the "Proper Officer."

Since grant of Temporary ID is essentially a registration-related function, one possible interpretation is that the jurisdictional Proper Officer responsible for registration functions may be the appropriate authority.

However, this remains only an interpretative view.

There is presently no statutory provision expressly assigning this responsibility.

Need for Administrative Clarification

The Telangana High Court has ensured that substantive justice prevails.

However, recurring litigation can easily be avoided if CBIC or GSTN issues:

• a Standard Operating Procedure;

• a Circular;

• or suitable portal functionality

clearly identifying:

• the authority competent to issue Temporary IDs;

• the application procedure;

• the timelines; and

• the documents required.

Such clarification would ensure that the statutory right of appeal under Section 112 remains practical rather than merely theoretical.

Conclusion

The introduction of Rule 16A acknowledges that persons not liable for GST registration may nevertheless require access to the GST system.

The Telangana High Court has rightly held that an unregistered person cannot be deprived of the statutory remedy of appeal merely because of procedural limitations.

Nevertheless, an important practical issue continues to remain unresolved.

Who is the Proper Officer responsible for granting the Temporary Identification Number for filing an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal?

Until this question is answered through legislative or administrative clarification, taxpayers and professionals may continue to encounter procedural uncertainty while exercising an otherwise valuable statutory right.

A timely clarification from CBIC or GSTN would not only remove this ambiguity but would also strengthen the objective of ensuring accessible and technology-enabled justice under the GST regime.

Disclaimer: This material and the information contained herein is intended for clients and other Chartered Accountants to provide updates and is not an exhaustive treatment of such subject. We are not, by means of this material, rendering any professional advice or services. It should not be relied upon as the sole basis for any decision which may affect you or your business.