News Update

Unveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
Power to Remand cases curtailed in GST

MARCH 05, 2021

By R C Prasad, MBA, LLM

HAS the Appellate authority in GST got the power to remand the cases to the Adjudicating authority? This question hovers around the offices of the Appellate Authorities and there are divergent views on this issue.

Before discussing the legal provisions on this issue it would be prudent to discuss why the cases are being remanded to the original authorities. It is really embarrassing for the appellate authorities when they have to deal with such orders in original where the Adjudicating authorities have issued orders without following the principles of natural justice, or by mentioning such facts and grounds, which were never a part of the show cause notice, or without giving cogent reasons for the findings or sometimes without verifying the documents required for quantification of demands/refunds. All these facts places the Appellate Authorities in a piquant situation and the easiest way for them is to remand the cases either with general remark or with specific directions.

What the Law says:

Sub-section 11 of Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as:

Section 107 (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:

It may be seen that in the CGST Act, 2017, it has been specifically mentioned that the Appellate Authority shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order. The word used is 'shall' and not 'may' so that there is an element of discretion with the Appellate Authorities.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakshmanasami Gounder vs C.I.T. Selvamani And Ors - 1991 SCR, Supl. & 181 1992 SCC (1) 91 has deliberated in detail about the use of word 'shall' in statutes:-

It is settled law that the word 'shall' be construed in the light of the purpose the Act or Rule that seeks to serve. It is not an invariable rule that even though the word 'shall' is ordinarily mandatory but in the context or if the intention is otherwise, it may be construed to be directory. The construction ultimately depends upon the provisions itself, keeping in view the intendment of the enactment or of the context in which the word 'shall' has been used and the mischief it seeks to avoid.

Historical perspective:

Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 / Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 as it existed before 11-5-2001 provided that Commissioner (Appeals) shall, after making such further enquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the adjudicating authority with such direction as he may think fit for a fresh adjudication or decision as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary.

The said Section was amended w.e.f 11.05.2001 deleting the phrase as mentioned in bold above with an intention to withdraw the powers to Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the cases for fresh adjudication to the original adjudication authorities.

After the amendment in 2001, the said Sections read as follows :-

"The Commissioner (Appeals) shall, after making such further enquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against."

Though the phrase "or may refer the case back to the adjudicating authority with such direction as he may think fit for a fresh adjudication or decision as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary" was deleted after the amendment, the Commissioner (Appeals) continued to enjoy the freedom to refer the case back to the adjudicating authority under the silhouette of different decisions of the High Courts and Supreme Court. [Instruction dt. 18 February 2010]

On 25th July 2008, the Central Board of Excise & Customs had issued instructions from F. No. 275/34/2006-CX.8A and wherein it was specifically mentioned that:-

Para 3. The Board has noted that Commissioner (Appeals) do not resort to the mechanism of further enquiry as provided to them under the appeal procedure as above in such cases where it may be necessary before passing the order . Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001 provides that nothing contained in said rule shall affect the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct the production of any document, or the examination of any witness to enable him dispose of the appeal.

Para 4. In the light of the provisions as contained in the statute and the rules made there under, I am directed to request you to advise Commissioners (Appeals) working in your jurisdiction to resort to enquiry in such appeals as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case before passing a just and fair order in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

The Board was very much clear in its instructions that the Commissioner (Appeals) should resort to inquiry in such appeals and the indirect message was not to refer back the cases to the adjudicating authorities.

What is to be seen is that before the amendment there was an 'enabling' provision for the Commissioner (Appeals) in the respective Acts to refer back the case and thereafter it was deleted, which neutralized the 'enabling' effect, but the Court interpreted it in a way that though the enabling provision has been deleted, it does not mean that it has taken the power to refer back the case and the Commissioner (Appeals) followed it at their discretions.

Now, in the CGST Act, 2017, as extracted earlier, there is a 'disabling' provision and the Act debars the Appellate Authority from referring back the case to the adjudicating authority. Although there is no ambiguity, yet the Appellate Authorities are referring back the cases in GST.

It would be pertinent to mention that the lawmakers are very much clear in their view as in the case of GST Tribunal, it has been specifically mentioned in Section 113 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017 that - (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the Appellate Authority, or the Revisional Authority or to the original adjudicating authority, with such directions as it may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision after taking additional evidence, if necessary.

It is very clear that where it was felt necessary to 'enable' referring back the case, as in the case of GST Tribunal, it was enabled, and where it was felt not necessary, as in case of Appellate Authority, it was clearly 'disabled'.

Hope the lower Appellate authorities take note of the embargo in the law and do not add to the already increased load of litigation by flouting it with impunity!

[The views expressed are strictly personal.]

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the site)

POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023