Revisional proceedings under GST quashed as order was passed without jurisdiction and reasons, violating Section 99(2) and principles of natural justice.

Case Summary

Case Title: M/s Agrawal Agro Centre v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
Petition No.: WPT No. 101 of 2019
Date of Judgment: 22.07.2025
Category: Revision Proceedings under GST
Relevant Sections: Sections 99(2), 107, 108 of the Chhattisgarh GST Act, 2017 (pari materia to CGST Act, 2017), Rule of Natural Justice

Facts (Paras 1–3)

The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm, had its vehicle intercepted on 22.05.2019 by the Assistant Commissioner, Raigarh, who alleged that goods were transported twice using the same e-way bill and invoice. On this presumption, tax and penalty were imposed. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/State GST Act, 2017, which was allowed on 30.05.2019. However, the Commissioner, exercising powers under Section 108, stayed the appellate order on 01.06.2019 by initiating suo motu revision proceedings. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that at the time of passing, no notification under Section 99(2) existed authorising the Commissioner as revisional authority, rendering the order void ab initio.

Questions/Dispute (Paras 3–4)

1. Whether the revisional order dated 01.06.2019 could stand when no notification under Section 99(2) authorised the officer as Revisional Authority on that date.

2. Whether the impugned order was valid despite being passed without cogent reasons, in breach of principles of natural justice.

Court’s Observations (Paras 6–8)

• The notification empowering officers as Revisional Authority under Section 99(2) read with Section 5 was only issued on 07.08.2020, effective from 13.01.2020. Thus, on 01.06.2019, the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass the revisional order.

• The impugned order contained no reasons justifying exercise of suo motu revision under Section 108. Recording of reasons is integral to natural justice, and absence of reasons renders the order unsustainable.

Judgment (Paras 9–10)

The High Court quashed the impugned revisional order dated 01.06.2019 and directed that the revision proceedings be dropped forthwith. However, it clarified that if law authorises, the competent authority may exercise revisional jurisdiction afresh, but only after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Any fresh proceedings must be initiated within 15 days of receipt of the order. The writ petition was thus allowed to the extent indicated.

Table of Precedents Referred

Between Fine Lines

For businesses, this ruling underscores that GST revision proceedings are valid only when the officer is duly empowered by a statutory notification. Further, any revisional order must record clear reasons—mere mechanical exercise of power is unsustainable. Traders can rely on this judgment to contest jurisdictionally defective or unreasoned GST demands.

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”