Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And Cx Budge Budge Division Kolkata South Commissionerate vs. M/S J V Gokal And Co PVT LTD And Anr

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated October 18, 2022, passed by the appellate authority, was without jurisdiction on the face of it, contrary to Section 107(11) of the CGST Act. The Court reasoned that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act specifically prohibits the appellate authority from remanding any matter. The statutory powers of the appellate authority are confined to confirming, modifying, or annulling an order. The act of remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority was therefore beyond its jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate authority cannot exercise powers not expressly conferred upon it by statute, and a remand order by an appellate authority, when statutorily barred, is a jurisdictional error. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and the assessee, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, Budge Budge Division, Kolkata South Commissionerate, filed this writ petition challenging an order dated October 18, 2022, passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner contends that the appellate authority's order is without jurisdiction. The core of the petitioner's argument is that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act explicitly bars the appellate authority from remanding any matter. The statute, according to the petitioner, only empowers the appellate authority to confirm, modify, or annul an order of the adjudicating authority. The action of remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority is therefore considered beyond its statutory powers. No respondents appeared before the court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority, under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, has the jurisdiction to remand a matter to the adjudicating authority? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act contains a specific bar preventing the appellate authority from remanding any matter. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority's statutory powers are limited to confirming, modifying, or annulling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, any order of remand by the appellate authority is without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The petitioner relied on the plain reading of Section 107(11) of the CGST Act. Revenue/State's arguments: None appears for the respondents, and therefore, no arguments were recorded on behalf of the revenue or state.