Case Details: Anand and Anand (Law Firm) vs. Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Services (2025) 34 Centax 258 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
- S/Shri Sanyukta Singh & Shubham Agrawal, Counsels, for the Petitioner
- Shri Parv Agarwal, Counsel, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The petitioner in this matter was the assessee challenging the remand of appeals by the Appellate Authority. The facts reveal that the Appellate Authority, namely the Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals, remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority despite the express prohibition under Section 107(11) of CGST Act. The legal issue arose whether the Appellate Authority had the power to remit matters back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh when Section 107(11) imposes a mandatory bar on such remand. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the Appellate Authority cannot remit the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority once an appeal has been filed, as Section 107(11) of CGST Act clearly provides a mandatory bar against such remand. The Court observed that the Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals, had not carefully considered the statutory provision while passing the impugned order. Consequently, the latter part of the order remitting the matter was set aside, and the petition was disposed of with a direction that the Joint Commissioner shall decide the appeals filed in accordance with law under Section 107 of CGST Act/Uttar Pradesh GST Act.
List of Cases Cited
- Kronos Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2024:AHC:16550-DB — Referred [Paras 8, 9]
