Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010242312024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./206/2024 THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS AND ORS REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, 1ST FLOOR TOWER NBCC, PLAZA-1, SECTOR 5, PUSHP VIHAR, NEW DELHI- 110017. 2: THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON. 5TH FLOOR TOWER-II JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING JANPATH ROAD CONNAUGHT PALACE NEW DELHI-110001 3: UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY BY THE SECRETARY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI-110001 VERSUS M/S. BARKATAKI PRINT AND MEDIA SERVICES AND ORS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 9, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, 781021. REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR SRI DHRUBAJYOTI BARKOTOKY. 2:DHRUBAJYOTI BARKOTOKY SON OF LATE PRABOTI PRASAD BARKOTOKY RESIDENT OF H.NO. 14 MANALISHA PATH ZOO NARENGI ROAD GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 781021. 3:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER STATE TAX KAR BHAWAN G.S. BHAWAN KAMRUP(M) GUWAHATI ASSAM. 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX KAR BHAWAN GUWAHATI-A-10 GUWAHATI ZONE- A ASSAM For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Standing Counsel For the Respondent(s) : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 07.01.2025 This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 passed in WP(C) No.3585/2024, whereby this Court had held the Notification No. 56/2023-CT to be ultra vires, the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and accordingly set aside and quashed the said Notification. 2. The sole ground taken in the instant review application is that the Notification No. 56/2023-CT was subsequently ratified by the GST Council in its meeting held on 22.06.2024 and as such, there is an error apparent in the impugned judgment and order sought to be reviewed. Page No.# 3/3 3. This Court during the course of the hearing enquired with Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel of the CGST as to whether a ratification subsequently can take care of the recommendation which was required as per Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017. This query was made taking into account that by way of a recommendation a process is initiated by way of a proposal, whereas ratification can only be applied when there is a requirement of an approval and both the terms, under no circumstances, can be said to be the same. 4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner, however, could not provide any answer to the said query. 5. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no ground for exercising its review jurisdiction, for which, the instant review petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant