Guidelines for review, revision, and appeals for orders passed by GST Common Adjudicating Authority
CBIC has issued clarifications / guidelines for review, revision, and appeals for orders passed by GST Common Adjudicating Authority.
CBIC vide Notification No. 02/2017 dated 19th June 2017 (as amended) read with Circular No. 239/33/2024-GST dated 4th December 2024, designated Joint/Additional Commissioners posted in specified Commissionerates as Common Adjudicating Authority (CAA) in respect of show cause notices issued by Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI).
The said circular has specified the procedure to be followed in case of assigning such show cause notices to the Common Adjudicating Authority along with their territorial jurisdiction.
However, the said circular does not specify the procedure related to review, revision, and appeals for such Orders-in -Original (O-I-Os) passed by CAA.
It is notable that section 107 of the CGSTAct, 2017 provides a detailed mechanism for handling the appeals by the Appellate authority and by exercising the same power, the rules have also been framed with regard to appeal and review. Similarly, the Reviewing Authority also has the power under the said section to review adjudication orders passed by a CAA who is posted under the said reviewing authority.
Similarly, Section 108 of the CGST Act, 2017, provides a detailed mechanism for revision of such orders. Vide notification No. 05/2020-Central tax dated 13th January, 2020, the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, has been authorized as revisional authority for decisions or orders passed by Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax who are subordinate to him.
CBIC in order to ensure uniformity in procedure for review, revision, and appeal against the Orders-in-Original adjudicated by Common Adjudicating Authorities has given following clarifications vide Circular No. 250/7/2025-GST dated 24.06.2025:
| (a) Review under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 | The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax under whom the Common Adjudicating Authority (Additional/ Joint Commissioner) is posted shall be the reviewing authority in respect of such O-I-Os. |
| (b) Revisional Power under Section 108 of the CGST Act, 2017 | The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax under whom the Common Adjudicating Authority (Additional/ Joint Commissioner) is posted shall be the revisional authority in respect of such O-I-Os. |
| (c) Appeal Procedure under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 | Appeals against the order of Common Adjudicating Authority (Additional/Joint Commissioner) shall lie before the Commissioner (Appeals) corresponding to the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner of Central Tax, under whom the said Common Adjudicating Authority (Additional/ Joint Commissioner) is posted, as specified in Table III of notification No. 02/2017-Central tax dated 19th June, 2017. |
| (d) Department’s Representation in Appeals | The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Central Tax of such Commissionerate under whom the Common Adjudicating Authority (Additional/Joint Commissioner) is posted shall represent the department in appeal proceedings against the O-I-Os passed by such Common Adjudicating Authority (Additional/ Joint Commissioner) and accordingly may appoint any officer subordinate to him to be the designated officer for filing departmental appeals |
| (e) The reviewing or revisional authority for such orders may seek comments on the O-I-O from the concerned DGGI formation before proceeding to decide on the order passed by the CAA | |
Non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for return filed u/s 148 even though belatedly, makes the assessment framed bad in…
Calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim’s earning capacity in the open, competitive market – Supreme Court In…
Appeal against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who…
Supreme Court recommends action against Commissioner of Customs who relied upon non-existent AI generated case laws. Supreme Court recommends action…
ITAT power to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" implies a judicial discretion to be exercised within the parameters…
Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…