Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs And Ors Vs Barkataki Print And Media Services And Ors
Date: January 6, 2025
Court: High Court
Bench: Gauhati
Type: Review Petition
Subject Matter
GST Notification ratification cannot substitute recommendation
Summary
In the case titled Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Ors. v. Barkataki Print and Media Services & Ors., the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court dismissed a review petition concerning a prior court decision. The initial case (WP(C) No. 3585/2024) concluded that Notification No. 56/2023-Central Tax issued on December 28, 2023, was ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the CGST Act due to a lack of prior recommendation from the GST Council as mandated by Section 168A of the Act. The review petition argued that the Notification was ratified by the GST Council in a meeting on June 22, 2024, and requested recalibration as this ratification was presented as a corrective measure for the earlier procedural oversight. During the hearing, the Court examined whether a post-issue ratification could satisfy the requirement of prior recommendation necessary to issue notifications under the GST Act. The Court distinguished between 'recommendation'—a prerequisite to take action—and 'ratification'—which occurs after the fact. The Court found that ratification could not be a substitute for prior recommendation as highlighted in Section 168A, and thus, the procedure was not valid. Ultimately, the Court determined that there was no valid basis to reconsider the prior ruling, leading to the dismissal of the review petition, reinforcing the importance of proper procedure in legislative actions under the GST framework.
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.