Recently, the CBIC issued Cir.No.157/13/2021-GST dated 20.7.2021 interpreting the Supreme Court directives dated 27.4.2021 in the Suo Motu case titled : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation : (2021) 36 J.K.Jain’s GST & VR 23 (SC), which was rendered by the Supreme Court due to multifarious difficulties being faced by all citizens of India during COVID-19 pandemic. The matter of extension of period of limitation under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 was also deliberated in the 43rd Meeting of GST Council. Council, while providing various relaxations in the compliances for taxpayers, also recommended that wherever the timelines for actions have been extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same would apply. In contrast to these GST council recommendations, the CBIC interpreted Supreme Court directives as under in regard to “quasi-judicial proceedings”.
| S.
No. |
Category | Clarification by CBIC | Application of orders of SC |
| 1. | Tax payers─ Initiation of Proceedings or Compliances by Tax payers | These actions would continue to be governed only by the statutory mechanism and time limit provided/ extensions granted under the statute itself. | Not applicable to these proceedings/ compliances |
| 2. | Tax authorities (TA) ─Quasi-Judicial proceedings by TA | The tax authorities can continue to hear and dispose off proceedings where they are performing the functions as quasi-judicial authority. This may inter alia include disposal of application for refund, application for revocation of cancellation of registration, adjudication proceedings of demand notices, etc. Similarly, appeals which are filed and are pending, can continue to be heard and disposed off and the same will be governed by those extensions of time granted by the statutes or notfns, if any. | Not applicable to the said proceedings/ compliances on part of the taxpayers. |
Such type of approach of CBIC is in utter violation of ratio decidendi of Hon’ble Supreme Court as decided in Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v Union of India (1978) 2 ELT (J345) (SC), wherein it was held that a quasi-judicial power cannot be controlled by the directions issued by the Board. It was further held that no authority however high placed can control the decision of a judicial or a quasi-judicial authority. In Mahadayal Prem Chandra v. CTO, AIR 1958 SC 667 (SC), it was held that the Board can issue instructions which relate to only administrative matters.
Author Bio
Vaswami Sir,
I fully endorse your views.
Om Prakash Jain s/o J.K.Jain
Tel 9414300730
“………………….In contrast to these GST council recommendations, the CBIC interpreted Supreme Court directives as under in regard to “quasi-judicial proceedings”.
…………………
The most ridiculous and extremely sordid state of affais ; has not the CBIC impudently rendered itself to disciplinary action on the grounds of ‘ contempt of the Govt.’ its paymaster ; so also of the ‘Apex Court’ ?!?