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

Mandatory inquiry before appellate decision: necessity and extent determine whether orders withstand challenge under revision principles.
The statutory phrase "after making such further inquiry as may be necessary" must be read against the duty to "pass such order"; constructional debate centers on whether that phrase creates an inevitable duty to inquire or a discretion to do so only when facts require. Comparative rulings under analogous revisional provisions show that a complete absence of inquiry before exercising revision has been held to invalidate revisional orders, and the necessity and extent of any inquiry remains a fact sensitive question tied to principles of natural justice and available rectification mechanisms.