Review Petition Dismissed: Notification Extending Assessment Time Limit Remains Invalid Despite GST Council Ratification
Summary in Key Points:
- Notification Challenged: Notification No. 56/2023-CT, extending the time limit for passing assessment orders for financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20, was initially quashed for lacking a recommendation from the GST Council as required by Section 168A of the CGST Act.
- Ratification Argument: The Revenue filed a review petition arguing that subsequent ratification by the GST Council validated the notification.
- Recommendation vs. Ratification: The court distinguished between “recommendation” (initiating a process) and “ratification” (approving an existing action), holding that ratification cannot replace the mandatory requirement of a prior recommendation.
- Review Jurisdiction Not Exercised: The court found no grounds to review its earlier judgment and dismissed the review petition.
Decision:
The High Court upheld its original decision, declaring Notification No. 56/2023-CE invalid. This decision reinforces the importance of adherence to procedural requirements, particularly the GST Council’s role in recommending changes to tax laws. It clarifies that subsequent ratification cannot cure the defect of an initial lack of recommendation, providing certainty and upholding the legislative framework of the GST regime.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
v.
Barkataki Print and Media Services
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Case No. : Review.Pet. No.206 of 2024
JANUARY 7, 2025
S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel for the Petitioner.
ORDER
1. This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.3585/2024, whereby this Court had held the Notification No. 56/2023-CT to be ultra vires, the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and accordingly set aside and quashed the said Notification.
2. The sole ground taken in the instant review application is that the Notification No. 56/2023-CT was subsequently ratified by the GST Council in its meeting held on 22.06.2024 and as such, there is an error apparent in the impugned judgment and order sought to be reviewed.
3. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired with Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel of the CGST as to whether a ratification subsequently can take care of the recommendation which was required as per Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. This query was made taking into account that by way of a recommendation a process is initiated by way of a proposal, whereas ratification can only be applied when there is a requirement of an approval and both the terms, under no circumstances, can be said to be the same.
4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner, however, could not provide any answer to the said query.
5. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no ground for exercising its review jurisdiction, for which, the instant review petition stands dismissed.