Scope and Limitation of Revision under the Proviso to Section 108(2) of the CGST Act
1. General Bar under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2)
Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 108 creates a categorical embargo on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction where the order in question has already been subjected to appellate scrutiny under any of the statutory provisions enumerated therein—namely, Sections 107 (Appeal to Appellate Authority), 112 (Appeal to Appellate Tribunal), 117 (Appeal to High Court), or 118 (Appeal to Supreme Court). The rationale behind this embargo is grounded in the doctrine of finality of judicial or quasi-judicial decisions, which holds that once an order has been tested on merits through the appellate mechanism, it ought not to be interfered with collaterally by way of revision on the same issues, lest there arise a conflict of adjudicatory opinions or multiplicity of proceedings.
2. Carved-out Exception via the Proviso
Notwithstanding the general bar in clause (a), the proviso to Section 108(2) serves as a saving clause, preserving the power of the Revisional Authority in a narrowly tailored set of circumstances. It permits the Revisional Authority to pass an order under sub-section (1) of Section 108 even when the order sought to be revised has been appealed, provided the point or issue under revision was neither raised nor decided in the appellate proceedings. This provision reflects the legislative intent to balance finality of appellate decisions with the necessity of rectifying grave errors of law or jurisdiction which might have escaped both the original and the appellate fora, due to their non-assertion.
3. Scope of Revisional Authority under the Proviso
The scope of the Revisional Authority under this proviso is therefore limited but significant. It is confined strictly to points of law or fact which were not canvassed or adjudicated upon in the appellate stage. The authority must undertake a careful examination of the appellate order to ascertain whether the issue proposed to be revised was explicitly or implicitly raised or dealt with. If it was, the bar under clause (a) continues to operate. If it was not, the authority may proceed to revise, subject to the temporal limitation discussed below. Importantly, the proviso does not authorize a reappraisal of issues already considered and ruled upon in appeal; doing so would contravene the doctrine of res judicata and violate the principles of judicial discipline.
4. Temporal Limitations Governing the Exercise of Power
The proviso imposes a conjunctive limitation on the exercise of such revisional powers. The Revisional Authority must act either:
- within one year from the date of the order in appeal, or
- within three years from the date of the original decision or order sought to be revised,
whichever is later.
This dual limitation functions both as a condition precedent and as a jurisdictional bar. The phrase “whichever is later” implies that even if one of the timelines has expired, the authority may proceed with revision if the other is still subsisting. This safeguards against premature foreclosing of revisional powers in cases where appellate orders are passed close to the end of the three-year period from the original order. However, any attempt to invoke revisional jurisdiction beyond the later of these two periods would render the proceeding without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.
5. Practical and Judicial Considerations
In exercising its powers under the proviso, the Revisional Authority must maintain a strict demarcation between what has been judicially examined on appeal and what has not. Courts have consistently held that powers of revision are not intended to serve as a substitute for appeal. The authority must act with circumspection and ensure that the revisional proceeding is not used to reopen matters already settled by appellate forums. Any abuse of the revisional jurisdiction may be struck down by superior courts under their writ jurisdiction for being arbitrary or beyond statutory limits.
Conclusion
In sum, the proviso to Section 108(2) of the CGST Act provides a limited window for the Revisional Authority to intervene in cases where the original order has been appealed but certain issues have remained untested in the appellate process. This power, however, is tightly hedged in by both subject-matter and temporal limitations, and its exercise must be governed by principles of judicial restraint, procedural fairness, and statutory compliance. The revisional process under the proviso thus serves as a safety valve within the appellate and adjudicatory hierarchy under the CGST framework, designed to correct errors that might otherwise remain un-remedied due to procedural oversight or omission.
***
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
.jpg){kind=small}