CAN SMR AUTHORITY MONITOR THE ADJUDICATION ORDER?

[Sadanand Bulbule]

Dear experts

1] The adjudication process under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act is supposed to be concluded by not only the authorised Proper Officer but also by an independent authority. It means, such Proper Officer is legally not to be influenced by the higher authorities in any manner so that such adjudication order is passed in a free and fair manner.

2] However in some States, there are official instructions via Circular to monitor the adjudication process by the Revisional authority appointed under Section 108 of the CGST Act. And only after the 'green signal' by such revisional authority, adjudication orders see the sunlight. In case there is ' red signal', no orders would come out so easily.Surprisingly such monitoring system instead of boosting the legality of the adjudication process/revenue under Section 73 or 74, there is strong apprehension of generating force on the Proper Officers to saddle tax liability without caring for the legal consequences.

3] The vital question here is, can the revisional authority under Section 108 be authorised to officially monitor the adjudication process/orders/decisions and direct the Proper Officer to conclude the adjudication under Section 73 or 74 in a specific wishful manner?

4]. Can such administrative instructions over-rule the statutory provisions/judicial rulings?

5] What is the settled legal position on this situation?

I am of the considered opinion that, the revisional authority is not supposed to see the adjudication process, much less monitoring it.

Experts to throw light on this.

AI Summary

Forum Debates CGST Act Monitoring: Concerns Over Section 108 Oversight Compromising Adjudication Independence Under Sections 73 and 74 A discussion in a forum addresses concerns about the monitoring of adjudication orders under the CGST Act, specifically Sections 73 and 74. Participants express apprehension over circulars issued in some states that allow revisional authorities, under Section 108, to oversee adjudication processes, potentially compromising the independence of Proper Officers. The debate highlights the tension between administrative instructions and statutory provisions, questioning the legality and fairness of such oversight. Contributors argue that quasi-judicial functions should remain uninfluenced by higher authorities and stress the importance of maintaining the integrity of the adjudication process to prevent undue influence and ensure justice.