TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Section 108 Order Under GST Act Set Aside for Lack of Jurisdiction and Violation of Natural Justice Principles</h1> The HC set aside the suo motu order passed under Section 108 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017, due to lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural ... Order passed suo motu u/s 108 of Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - order has been passed in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the impugned order dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure-P/1) and Notification dated 07.08.2020 would show that though the concerned Authority has passed the order, however, on the date of passing of such order, no notification was issued enabling the said Authority to pass such order. The Notification was issued on 07.08.2020, whereby, the concerned Officers were authorized as Revisional Authority. In the order impugned, no cogent reasons have been assigned for exercising power under Section 108 of the Act 2017 for suo motu revision. Section 108 of the Act 2017 empowers the Authority that if certain facts are not decided in appeal, the Authority may exercise its jurisdiction and in order to exercise such jurisdiction, the primary satisfaction should be recorded by the said Authority, as the order without reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. The impugned order dated 01.06.2019 is not sustainable and the same is hereby set-aside. The concerned Authority is hereby directed to drop the revision proceedings forthwith - Petition allowed. ISSUES: Whether an order passed by an authority under the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 without prior notification constituting such authority is valid.Whether the revisional authority can exercise suo motu power under Section 108 of the Act 2017 without assigning any reasons.Whether an order passed in revision proceedings without recording primary satisfaction and without reasons complies with the principles of natural justice.Whether the revisional proceedings can be continued or must be dropped when the revisional authority was not competent at the time of passing the order. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The impugned order passed on 01.06.2019 is void ab initio as no notification was issued under sub-section (2) of Section 99 of the Act 2017 at the time empowering the authority to act as Revisional Authority.Section 108 of the Act 2017 requires the revisional authority to record primary satisfaction and assign cogent reasons for exercising suo motu revision; an order passed in a cryptic manner without reasons is not sustainable.The principle that 'To give reasons is the rule of natural justice' applies, making an order without reasons lifeless and unsustainable.The impugned revisional order is set aside and the revision proceedings are directed to be dropped forthwith, but the competent authority may exercise revisional jurisdiction afresh after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order in accordance with law. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory provisions of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, particularly Section 99(2), Section 108, and Section 5, to determine the competence of the revisional authority and the validity of the order passed.The Court relied on the requirement that a revisional authority must be duly notified by the State Government before exercising revisional powers, as per sub-section (2) of Section 99 read with Section 5 of the Act 2017.The Court emphasized the doctrine of natural justice, specifically the requirement that reasons must be given when exercising discretionary powers, citing that 'the reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion.'The Court noted that the notification empowering the revisional authority was issued only after the date of the impugned order, rendering the order passed prior to notification invalid.The Court allowed the State to exercise revisional jurisdiction afresh in accordance with law, ensuring procedural fairness and adherence to statutory requirements.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
