The Chairman Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs (CBIC) vs. Jitendra Pratap Singh And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, the Chairman Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and the Union of India, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 12/06/2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, in OA No. 040/00033/2025. The petitioners argued that they possess the power to review decisions made under Rule 54-B(1) of the Fundamental Rules (FR) by virtue of Rule 54-B(6) of the FR. They contended that this power of review was not explicitly stated in the impugned CAT order. The petitioners indicated that if allowed to make such a review, they would not press the writ petition further. The respondent, represented by learned counsel, stated they had no arguments to make against the petitioners' submission.
Held
The Court held that the petitioners, as authorities, possess the power to review decisions made pursuant to Rule 54-B(1) of the Fundamental Rules, by virtue of Rule 54-B(6) of the Fundamental Rules. The Court clarified that subsequent to a decision being made by the authorities under Rule 54-B(1), they have the authority to conduct a review of that decision by applying Rule 54-B(6). The reasoning was based on the explicit submission of the petitioners regarding their review powers and the lack of opposition from the respondent. The ratio decidendi is that statutory rules, when granting a specific power like review, must be interpreted to include that power. The operative direction was to clarify this position, and in light of this clarification, the writ petition was closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners, as authorities under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, have the power to review decisions made pursuant to Rule 54-B(1) of the Fundamental Rules, in light of Rule 54-B(6) of the Fundamental Rules? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that Rule 54-B(6) of the Fundamental Rules grants them the explicit power to review decisions made under Rule 54-B(1) of the Fundamental Rules. They argued that this power of review was not adequately reflected in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. They stated that if this right to review were acknowledged, they would not pursue the writ petition further. Revenue/State's Argument: The learned counsel for the respondent stated that they had no arguments to make concerning the submissions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sections Cited
Rule 54-B(1), Rule 54-B(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER Date : 28/09/2026 (Michael Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Jain,
Page No.# 2/2 learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that in terms of Rule 54-B(6) of the Fundamental Rules (FR), the petitioners have the power to review its decision made pursuant to Rule 54-B(1) of the Fundamental Rules. However, the same has not been stated in the impugned order dated 12/06/2026 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, in OA No. 040/00033/2025. He submits that if the petitioners are allowed to make a review of the order passed under Rule 54-B(1) of the FR by way of Rule 54- B(6), he does not wish to press this petition any further.
Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel appears for the sole respondent along with Mr. A. Mishra, learned counsel on the strength of caveat no. 1016/2026. Caveat stands discharged.
Mr. Mohanty submits that he has got no argument to make in respect of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
In view of the submission made by the counsels for the parties, it is hereby clarified that subsequent to a decision being made by the authorities pursuant to Rule 54-B(1) of the FR, the petitioners have the power to make a review of the decision it makes under Rule 54-B(1), by application of Rule 54- B(6) of the Fundamental Rules.
The writ petition is accordingly closed.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.