Case Law Details
Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs And Ors Vs Barkataki Print And Media Services And Ors (Gauhati High Court)
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Ors. v. Barkataki Print and Media Services & Ors. [Review Pet./206/2024 dated January 7, 2025] dismissed the review petition wherein the Petitioner had file review application of Barkataki Print and Media Services v. Union of India (WP(C) No. 3585/2024 dated September 19, 2024), whereby the Court had held that Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax Dated: 28th December, 2023 (“the Notification”) to be ultra vires of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the CGST Act”). Hence, the said order was set aside and the Notification was quashed.
The issue raised in the review petition was that the Notification was subsequently ratified by the GST Council in its meeting held on June 22, 2024.
This Court during the course of the hearing enquired whether a ratification subsequently can take care of the recommendation which was required as per Section 168A of the CGST Act.
This query was made taking into account that by way of a recommendation a process is initiated by way of a proposal, whereas ratification can only be applied when there is a requirement of an approval and both the terms, under no circumstances, can be said to be the same.
Hence, the court did not find any ground for exercising it review jurisdiction. Hence, the review petition was dismissed.
Our Comments:
The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court’s dismissal of the review petition highlights the importance of procedural compliance in legislative recommendations under Section 168A of the CGST Act. The Court’s inquiry into the distinction between recommendation and ratification underscores that the latter cannot substitute the former.
Section 168A of the GST Act provides that extension notification can be issued on the recommendation of the GST Council. So far as notification No. 56/2023 is concerned, there was no prior notification of GST Council. The counter of the Department filed in the pari materia cases show that the Notification was issued on the basis of decision taken by GST Implementation Committee/Law Committee. Thus, decision of Implementation/Law Committee was ratified by GST Council after six months from the date of issuance of the Notification. The meaning of words ‘recommendation’ and ‘ratification’ were highlighted to show the difference between the two. The ‘recommendation’ is always prior in time which forms basis for taking a decision, whereas, ‘ratification’ is a subsequent exercise for a decision which has already been taken. In view of statutory mandate ingrained in Section 168A of the CGST Act, subsequent ‘ratification’ cannot satisfy the requirement of statute i.e., ‘on the recommendation of the GST Council’.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GAUHATI HIGH COURT
This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.3585/2024, whereby this Court had held the Notification No. 56/2023-CT to be ultra vires, the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and accordingly set aside and quashed the said Notification.
2. The sole ground taken in the instant review application is that the Notification No. 56/2023-CT was subsequently ratified by the GST Council in its meeting held on 22.06.2024 and as such, there is an error apparent in the impugned judgment and order sought to be reviewed.
3. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired with Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel of the CGST as to whether a ratification subsequently can take care of the recommendation which was required as per Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. This query was made taking into account that by way of a recommendation a process is initiated by way of a proposal, whereas ratification can only be applied when there is a requirement of an approval and both the terms, under no circumstances, can be said to be the same.
4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner, however, could not provide any answer to the said query.
5. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no ground for exercising its review jurisdiction, for which, the instant review petition stands dismissed.
*****
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
