M/S Agrawal Agro Centre vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Agrawal Agro Centre, a proprietorship firm registered under the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had its vehicle intercepted by the Assistant Commissioner, Raigarh. The Assistant Commissioner, on May 22, 2019, imposed tax and penalty, presuming goods were transported twice on the same e-way bill and invoice. The petitioner appealed this order, and the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal on May 30, 2019. Subsequently, the Commissioner, State Tax, passed an order on June 1, 2019, staying the Appellate Authority's order, exercising powers under Section 108 of the Act. The petitioner challenged this revision order, arguing it was passed without jurisdiction and reasons.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 01.06.2019 was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside. The primary reason was that on the date the order was passed, the authority exercising revisional powers was not duly authorized by a notification issued in terms of Section 99(2) of the Act. The notification authorizing the officers as Revisional Authority was issued only on 07.08.2020. Therefore, the order passed without proper authorization was void ab initio. Additionally, the Court noted that the revision order lacked cogent reasons, which is a violation of natural justice. The Court directed the concerned Authority to drop the revision proceedings forthwith. However, it clarified that if the law permits, the respondents may exercise revisional jurisdiction after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity of hearing and passing a fresh order in accordance with the law. Any further proceedings against the petitioner were to be initiated within 15 days of the order's communication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 01.06.2019 passed by the Commissioner, State Tax, exercising suo motu revisionary powers under Section 108 of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is void ab initio, considering that the notification authorizing such officers as Revisional Authority was issued later on 07.08.2020, contrary to Section 99(2) of the Act? - Petitioner's contention: The impugned order is void ab initio because the competent authority lacked jurisdiction at the time of passing the order, as the necessary notification under Section 99(2) of the Act was issued retrospectively on 07.08.2020. - Revenue/State's contention: The State counsel admitted that no notification was issued at the time of passing the order dated 01.06.2019 and suggested remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication.