Asst. Com. Of CGST And D Cx, Bbd Bag-I Div. Kol. North vs. The Com. CGST And Cx, Kol. App-I, Comm. And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated November 19, 2022, passed by the appellate authority, was without jurisdiction on the face of it. The Court reasoned that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act specifically prohibits the appellate authority from remanding a matter. The statutory powers of the appellate authority are limited to confirming, modifying, or annulling an order of the adjudicating authority. The action of remanding the matter was therefore beyond the appellate authority's conferred jurisdiction. The ratio decidendi is that an appellate authority under the CGST Act cannot remand a case, as this power is not granted by Section 107(11). 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 the petitioner and the assessee/private respondents, within 8 weeks.
Facts
The petitioner, an Assistant Commissioner of CGST, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 19, 2022, passed by the appellate authority (Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata Appeals-I Commissionerate). The petitioner contended that the appellate authority acted without jurisdiction by remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The petitioner argued that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act restricts the appellate authority's powers to confirming, modifying, or annulling an order, and does not permit remanding a case. The dispute concerns the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to pass the impugned order.
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? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Section 107(11) of the CGST Act explicitly bars the appellate authority from remanding any matter. The statute limits the appellate authority's powers to confirming, modifying, or annulling an order. Therefore, the impugned order of remand is beyond the appellate authority's jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (appellate authority and private respondents).
Sections Cited
Section 107(11)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023 PB Sl. No.
WPA 20152 of 2023
Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX, BBD Bag-I, Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate Vs The Commissioner, CGST & CX, Kolkata Appeals-I Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. K. K. Maiti, Mr. Tapan Bhanja. … For the Petitioner. Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, Mr. Raju Mondal. …..for the respondent no.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, CGST adjudicating authority itself is a petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 19th November, 2022, of the appellate authority, on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction on the face of it in view of Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, under which there is specific bar on the part of the appellate authority of the CGST to remand any matter. Statute confers jurisdiction upon him only either to confirm, modify or anal an order or a decision of the adjudicating authority and the action of remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority is beyond his jurisdiction. Since a pure question of law that the aforesaid impugned order is 2 without jurisdiction
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.