Divergent Advance Rulings Across explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Twenty-eight States and eight Union territories, each with its own Authority, each deciding independently. Divergence was inevitable, and the Act contains a mechanism for it — which took years to become usable.
Section 96 makes the Authority constituted under each State or Union territory Act the Authority for that State, and s.103(1) binds a ruling only on the applicant and its officers. So identical questions can be answered differently in different States, and nothing in the ordinary appellate structure resolves it. Section 101B was inserted to allow an appeal to the National Appellate Authority where Appellate Authorities of two or more States give conflicting rulings on the same question in the case of distinct persons. Section 101A(1A), inserted by the Finance Act, 2026 w.e.f. 01.04.2026, allows the Government — until the National Appellate Authority is constituted — to empower any existing Authority, including a Tribunal, to hear those appeals.
Why divergence happens
Independent Authorities. Each State's Authority is separately constituted, with a Centre member and a State member, both not below the rank of Joint Commissioner under Rule 103.
No binding precedent. Section 103(1) binds a ruling only on the applicant and the officers dealing with the applicant. One State's ruling is not authority in another.
Two members, no tie-break. A split at the Authority goes up under s.98(5); a split at the Appellate Authority means no ruling at all under s.101(3). When members differ →
Different facts, presented differently. Two applicants describing similar arrangements differently can genuinely produce different answers — which is why "conflicting rulings" needs the same question to be engaged, not merely a similar subject.
What section 101B requires
The mechanism is deliberately narrow. Three conditions:
Conflicting rulings. Not merely different reasoning — rulings that conflict on the answer.
By Appellate Authorities of two or more States or Union territories. The conflict must be at the appellate level, not between two first-level Authorities. So an appeal under s.100 must have been pursued in each State first.
On the same question, in the case of distinct persons. The applicants must be distinct persons — which, under s.25(4), means registrations of the same PAN in different States.
That last condition is what confines the mechanism. It is not a general route for a taxpayer unhappy with a ruling, or for an industry facing inconsistent treatment. It resolves the situation where one enterprise, registered in several States, receives opposite answers on the same question about its own supplies.
Section 101A(1A): the enabling provision
Section 101A(1) requires the Government, on the Council's recommendations, to constitute the National Appellate Authority by notification.
Section 101A(1A), inserted by the Finance Act, 2026 w.e.f. 01.04.2026, provides that notwithstanding sub-section (1), until the National Appellate Authority is constituted, the Government may, on the Council's recommendations, by notification empower any existing Authority constituted under any law for the time being in force to hear appeals under s.101B — and in such case:
- (a) the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (13) of s.101A shall not apply; and
- (b) any reference to the National Appellate Authority in the Chapter shall be construed as a reference to such Authority.
Explanation: the expression "existing Authority" shall include a Tribunal.
Why sub-sections (2) to (13) are disapplied. Those sub-sections deal with the constitution of the National Appellate Authority — its President who has been a Supreme Court Judge or a High Court Chief Justice, its Technical Members (Centre) and (State), the Selection Committee, terms of office and conditions of service. An existing Authority already has its own composition, so those provisions have nothing to operate on. The empowered Tribunal as NAAAR →
Section 101C(3) requires the order on a s.101B appeal within ninety days from the date of filing.
Section 103(1A): why it is worth pursuing
A ruling of the National Appellate Authority — or of the Authority empowered in its place — binds far more widely than an ordinary ruling.
Section 103(1A): the ruling shall be binding on:
- (a) the applicants, being distinct persons, who sought the ruling under s.101B(1), and all registered persons having the same Permanent Account Number issued under the Income-tax Act, 1961;
- (b) the concerned officers and jurisdictional officers in respect of those applicants and those registered persons.
So a single ruling settles the question for every GSTIN of the PAN, and for every officer dealing with them. That is a materially different proposition from an ordinary ruling binding one registration. Section 103 →
And s.103(2) applies to it as well: binding unless the law, facts or circumstances have changed.
What a multi-State group should actually do
Do not seek rulings State by State on the same question. Several applications on the same question invite divergence, and each adverse ruling binds that registration. Where a question matters across States, decide it centrally, take one considered position, and document it.
If a ruling is sought, seek one, in the most representative State. Then apply the reasoning across the group as a matter of internal policy — noting that it binds only the applicant.
Where divergence has already occurred, at the appellate level, between distinct persons of the same PAN, on the same question — s.101B is the mechanism designed for it, and its availability turns on the empowerment under s.101A(1A).
Keep positions consistent regardless. Inconsistent positions across States are the single most damaging thing a group can generate, because audit findings and statements travel between authorities. Multi-State audits →
Track rulings across States on your issues. Not because they bind, but because they tell you what the department will argue and where the divergence lies.
Key takeaways
- Section 96 and s.103(1) together make divergence between States structurally possible.
- Section 101B addresses conflicting appellate rulings between two or more States on the same question for distinct persons.
- The conflict must be at the appellate level, so a s.100 appeal must be pursued in each State first.
- Section 101A(1A), from 01.04.2026, lets the Government empower an existing Authority, including a Tribunal, in the National Appellate Authority's place.
- Section 103(1A) makes such a ruling binding on all registered persons of the same PAN and their officers.
- A group should seek one ruling, not several, and keep positions consistent across States regardless.
Read next
- Section 103: Binding Only on the Applicant
- National Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling: The Empowered Tribunal
- When Members Differ: Sections 98(5) and 101(3)
- Multi-State GST Audits and Coordinating the Response
Disclaimer: Positions stated as on 5 September 2026, based on the CGST Act as amended to 31 March 2026 (ICAI Bare Law, 12th edition). Sections 101A to 101C as originally inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019 are effective from a date to be notified; section 101A(1A) was inserted by the Finance Act, 2026 with effect from 1 April 2026. The empowerment of an existing Authority operates by notification, which should be checked before relying on the route.