INQUIRY BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear experts

Section 107[11] of the CGST Act speaks as under:

(11) The Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order:

What I understand from the above is, the Appellate Authority must make necessary inquiry at the commencement of hearing proceedings and then pass order as deemed fit. But contrast to such mandatory requirement, many of the Appellate Authorities are passing orders without making any inquiry, much less necessary,other than just observing the impugned order and the grounds of appeal. Here what is crucial is the absence of necessary inquiry itself.

Query:

How far such non-inquired orders are sustainable in the eye of law and what about the fate of appellant's merits? Are such half baked orders are eligible to be rectified under Section 161?

Experts to comment

AI Summary

Debate on Section 107(11) CGST Act: Is Inquiry by Appellate Authority Mandatory or Discretionary? A discussion on a legal forum centers around the interpretation of Section 107(11) of the CGST Act, which mandates the Appellate Authority to conduct necessary inquiries before passing an order. Participants debate whether the term 'as may be necessary' implies a mandatory or discretionary requirement for inquiry. One party argues that the absence of inquiry undermines the rule of law, while others suggest that the necessity of inquiry depends on the specifics of each case. Comparisons are drawn with similar provisions in the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice. The discussion also references judicial interpretations to support varying viewpoints, highlighting the complexity of determining when inquiries are required in appellate proceedings.