The Allahabad High Court Section 107 of the GST Act does not empower the appellate authority to remand the case back to adjudicating authority by giving second innings to the department.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal has observed that once the authority has come to the conclusion that the order impugned in the appeal cannot be sustained, there was no justification for giving further direction. Section 107 of the GST Act does not empower the appellate authority to pass an order giving a second inning to the Revenue. Sub-section (11) of section 107 of the GST Act, provides that Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order.
The petitioner/assessee has challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority to the extent wherein the Appellate Authority has remanded the matter to the Assistant/Deputy
Commissioner for verification of facts relating to the petitioner. The assessee contended that the appeal of the petitioner was allowed holding that the show cause notice and the order cancelling the registration are not meeting the standard, but while allowing the appeal, a fresh direction was issued to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner for verification of facts relating to the petitioner and on fulfilment of the conditions by the petitioner, the registration may be revoked. He further submits that the appellate authority has no power to remand the matter or give direction as given in the impugned order. Once the authority has come to the conclusion that the show cause notice for cancellation of registration and the order of cancellation are cryptic and no reason was assigned, a second inning cannot be given to the State authorities. Once the notice and the order were quashed and the same were never challenged by the State authority, further action cancelling the registration cannot be taken.
The department has contended that the petitioner has failed to discharge its burden. He further submits that while cancelling the registration of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was not conducting any business from the disclosed place. The said fact was also found on verification at the subsequent stage and therefore, the impugned orders have rightly been passed.
The court held that part of the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 is set aside to the extent it remands the matter to the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner for verification of facts relating to the petitioner.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Kanha Shree Steels Versus Assistant Deputy Commissioner Cgst Division
Case No.: WRIT TAX No. – 2746 of 2025
Date: 19.8.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Suyash Agarwal
Counsel For Respondent: A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan,Saumitra Singh
