In the present matter, the Court is of the considered opinion that while exercising the revisional power the authority has given go-bye to the procedure, that too without application of independent mind. The order must be supported by reasons but unfortunately the revisional authority/Commissioner did not choose to give reasons in support of order passed by him. This was in plain disregard to the requirement of law.
Section 108 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Powers of Revisional Authority —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 26.3.2021 passed by the respondent no.3, by which he has accepted the proposal for revision submitted by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, wherein, the appeal filed by the petitioner company was allowed and decision of the respondent Assessing Officer, communicated to the petitioner vide e-mails dated 23.7.2020 & 06.8.2020 for blocking of credit, was set aside. The petitioner through e-mail communication dated 23.7.2020 was informed that the ITC available in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner has been blocked under Rule 86-A and upon further enquiry, copy of the decision taken by the respondent no.5 was provided to the petitioner on 06.8.2020. Aggrieved with the said order dated 06.8.2020 the petitioner preferred statutory appeal and the same was allowed on 10.3.2021 on the ground that before blocking the credit, there was no ‘reason to believe’ with respondent no.5. But the respondent no.5 had not complied with the directions of the Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 16.3.2021 informed that the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority is legally and factually erroneous and as such, the same is required to be revised. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.3, without application of mind, has passed the impugned order dated 26.3.2021 in complete violation of principles of natural justice. More so, the jurisdiction under Section 108 Act can be exercised by the revisional authority on his own motion. The Court observed that while exercising the revisional power the authority has given go-bye to the procedure, that too without application of independent mind. The intent of the legislature to accord such power under the revision with a rider is to ensure that there may not be errors in the order passed by the officer subordinate to the revisional authority. The order impugned has been passed in absence of record .The order must be supported by reasons but unfortunately the revisional authority/Commissioner did not choose to give reasons in support of order passed by him. The said order does not satisfy the requirement of law.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 26.3.2021.
In the present matter, the Court is of the considered opinion that while exercising the revisional power the authority has given go-bye to the procedure, that too without application of independent mind. The order must be supported by reasons but unfortunately the revisional authority/Commissioner did not choose to give reasons in support of order passed by him. This was in plain disregard to the requirement of law.
Section 108 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Powers of Revisional Authority —–The petitioner challenged the order dated 26.3.2021 passed by the respondent no.3, by which he has accepted the proposal for revision submitted by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax and stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Commercial Tax, wherein, the appeal filed by the petitioner company was allowed and decision of the respondent Assessing Officer, communicated to the petitioner vide e-mails dated 23.7.2020 & 06.8.2020 for blocking of credit, was set aside. The petitioner through e-mail communication dated 23.7.2020 was informed that the ITC available in the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner has been blocked under Rule 86-A and upon further enquiry, copy of the decision taken by the respondent no.5 was provided to the petitioner on 06.8.2020. Aggrieved with the said order dated 06.8.2020 the petitioner preferred statutory appeal and the same was allowed on 10.3.2021 on the ground that before blocking the credit, there was no ‘reason to believe’ with respondent no.5. But the respondent no.5 had not complied with the directions of the Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 16.3.2021 informed that the order dated 10.3.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority is legally and factually erroneous and as such, the same is required to be revised. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no.3, without application of mind, has passed the impugned order dated 26.3.2021 in complete violation of principles of natural justice. More so, the jurisdiction under Section 108 Act can be exercised by the revisional authority on his own motion. The Court observed that while exercising the revisional power the authority has given go-bye to the procedure, that too without application of independent mind. The intent of the legislature to accord such power under the revision with a rider is to ensure that there may not be errors in the order passed by the officer subordinate to the revisional authority. The order impugned has been passed in absence of record .The order must be supported by reasons but unfortunately the revisional authority/Commissioner did not choose to give reasons in support of order passed by him. The said order does not satisfy the requirement of law.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 26.3.2021.