TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Gauhati HC Upholds Judgment Declaring Notification No. 56/2023-CT 'Ultra Vires' to CGST Act; Review Petition Dismissed.</h1> <h3>CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL, NEW DELHI AND UNION OF INDIA Versus M/s. BARKATAKI PRINT AND MEDIA SERVICES, DHRUBAJYOTI BARKOTOKY, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX GUWAHATI AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX, GUWAHATI</h3> The Gauhati HC dismissed the review petition seeking reconsideration of its previous judgment that declared Notification No. 56/2023-CT 'ultra vires' to ... Seeking review of the judgment and order whereby this Court had held the N/N. 56/2023-CT to be ultra vires - sole ground taken in the instant review application is that the N/N. 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. HELD THAT:- This Court finds no ground for exercising its review jurisdiction, for which, the instant review petition stands dismissed. In the case before the Gauhati High Court, presided over by Justice Devashis Baruah, the petitioner sought a review of the court's judgment dated 19.09.2024, which had declared Notification No. 56/2023-CT as 'ultra vires' to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and consequently quashed it. The review application was based on the argument that the notification was later ratified by the GST Council on 22.06.2024, suggesting an 'error apparent' in the original judgment.During the hearing, the court questioned whether a subsequent ratification could rectify the lack of a prior recommendation required under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. The court noted that a recommendation initiates a process through a proposal, while ratification pertains to approval, and these concepts are not interchangeable.The standing counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.C. Keyal, was unable to address this query satisfactorily. Consequently, the court found no basis to exercise its review jurisdiction and dismissed the review petition.
TaxTMI 
