The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Kolkata Bench, has stayed any further promotions to the post of Chief Commissioner/Director General in CBIC from the panel dated 03.01.2026 in a case filed by Satyajit Singh, Commissioner, CBIC.
The Bench of Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member and Anindo Majumdar, Accountant Member has directed the authorities to keep one post of Chief Commissioner of Customs & Indirect Taxes vacant while hearing a promotion dispute filed by a senior officer of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). The interim direction comes in connection with the empanelment process for promotion to the grade of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Customs & Indirect Taxes for the panel year 2026.
Background: Challenge to Empanelment Process
The case was filed by Satyajit Singh, a senior officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Indirect Taxes), who approached the Tribunal alleging that his name was not considered for empanelment despite being senior to several officers who were included in the promotion panel.
According to the application before the Tribunal, Singh belongs to the 1993 batch of the IRS (C&IT) and was promoted to the post of Commissioner of Customs & Indirect Taxes on July 30, 2025. However, when the government issued orders relating to promotions and empanelment for higher posts—including the order dated January 3, 2026 approving empanelment for Chief Commissioner/Director General—the names of several junior officers were included while his case remained unconsidered.
Reference to Government Empanelment Order
Earlier, the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) had approved the empanelment of multiple IRS officers for promotion to the grade of Chief Commissioner/Director General of Customs & Indirect Taxes, a top administrative position within CBIC responsible for overseeing indirect tax administration, GST implementation, and customs enforcement.
The order dated 03 January 2026, issued through the Department of Personnel and Training, listed several officers for promotion in Level 16 of the Pay Matrix and also created an extended panel to fill vacancies arising due to superannuation or other contingencies.
The applicant argued that some officers junior to him were empanelled in the said order, which prompted him to challenge the process before the Tribunal.
Earlier Tribunal Direction
The Tribunal also took note of its earlier order dated July 3, 2025 in OA No. 785/2025, where it had directed authorities to consider the applicant’s case for promotion after his regular promotion to the rank of Commissioner. The order required the authorities to initiate a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) process in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) if necessary.
However, the applicant submitted that despite the passage of time and his promotion to Commissioner, no final decision was communicated regarding his further promotion, while junior officers continued to be promoted.
Tribunal’s Interim Direction
After hearing the applicant’s counsel and noting the absence of representation from the respondents, the Tribunal admitted the application and issued interim directions.
The CAT directed the concerned authorities to:
- Decide the applicant’s promotion claim in accordance with the earlier Tribunal order, and
- Refrain from promoting any junior officers ahead of the applicant until his case is considered, or alternatively
- Keep one post vacant which will remain subject to the final outcome of the case.
The Tribunal also directed the respondents to file their reply within four weeks, while granting liberty to the applicant to submit a rejoinder thereafter.
The matter will now proceed before the Tribunal for further hearing after the respondents submit their response.
Case Details
Case Title: Satyajit Singh V/s Revenue
