Statutory recommendation cannot be cured by later ratification; review failed and the quashing of the GST notification stood.

Where Section 168A of the CGST Act requires a prior recommendation, a later ratification cannot replace that statutory precondition. The Gauhati HC noted that Notification No. 56/2023-CT had already been held ultra vires and quashed, and in review the only reliance was on subsequent GST Council ratification. The Court held that recommendation and ratification are distinct concepts, with ratification presupposing an earlier approval requirement rather than curing its absence. As no reviewable error was shown, the review petition was dismissed and the earlier quashing of the notification remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition could be entertained on the ground that Notification No. 56/2023-CT had been subsequently ratified by the GST Council, and whether such ratification could cure the absence of the recommendation contemplated under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The Court noted that the earlier judgment had held the notification ultra vires and had quashed it. In the review proceedings, the only ground urged was subsequent ratification by the GST Council. The Court found that a recommendation and a ratification are not interchangeable concepts: recommendation initiates a proposal, whereas ratification presupposes a prior requirement of approval. On that basis, the Court held that the subsequent ratification did not answer the statutory requirement under Section 168A.

Conclusion: The review petition disclosed no ground for exercise of review jurisdiction and was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The prior judgment quashing the notification remained undisturbed, and the challenge in review failed for want of any reviewable error.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires a recommendation, a later ratification cannot substitute for or cure the absence of that recommendation.

---