The CBIC has issued an Circular No. 255/01/2026-GST dated 25 June 2026, to provide much-needed clarity on the jurisdictional issues that arise when a registered taxpayer changes its Principal Place of Business, resulting in migration from one GST jurisdiction to another. The Circular addresses the validity of proceedings initiated by the erstwhile jurisdictional authority, the competence of authorities to continue pending proceedings, and the implementation of consequential actions after such migration.
It has been clarified that the legality of any action under the CGST Act is to be determined with reference to the jurisdiction existing on the date the statutory power was exercised. Accordingly, any investigation, audit, show cause notice, adjudication order, review order, appeal, or any other proceeding validly initiated by the transferor jurisdictional authority continues to remain legally valid notwithstanding the subsequent transfer of the taxpayer to another jurisdiction. However, once the migration takes effect, the transferor authority ceases to have jurisdiction and cannot initiate any fresh proceedings or undertake further action against the taxpayer. Any subsequent issue noticed by the transferor authority is required to be communicated to the transferee jurisdictional authority for appropriate action.
The Circular further clarifies that the transferee jurisdictional authority assumes complete responsibility for continuing pending proceedings from the stage at which they stood on the date of migration and is fully empowered to pass consequential orders, implement earlier decisions, initiate recovery proceedings, represent the department before appellate authorities and the GST Appellate Tribunal, and file or defend appeals arising out of such proceedings. Drawing support from judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Circular reinforces the principle that while a change in jurisdiction does not invalidate actions already lawfully taken by the competent authority, all future and consequential proceedings must be conducted by the officer presently vested with jurisdiction over the taxpayer.
The clarification eliminates jurisdictional ambiguities, prevents duplication of proceedings, ensures administrative continuity, and provides certainty to both taxpayers and tax authorities in cases involving transfer of GST registration from one jurisdiction to another.
The complete Circular can be accessed at https://taxo.online/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Circular-No-255-01-2026.pdf
