The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued a clarification regarding the competence of officers under certain sections of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. This comes in response to requests for guidance on whether successor or equivalent-rank officers can continue proceedings or issue orders under Sections 74A, 75(2), and 122 of the Act. Concerns had been raised about the jurisdiction of successor officers when the original officer was transferred or reassigned, particularly regarding the continuation of pending proceedings and penalty adjudication.
The CBIC clarified that under Section 74A, rectification orders can be passed by the same adjudicating authority or an equivalent officer without requiring fresh authorization, provided the jurisdiction remains unchanged. For Section 75(2), if the original officer is transferred or unavailable, a successor officer of the same rank is deemed competent to continue or conclude the proceedings. Additionally, under Section 122(1), the officer authorized to issue show cause notices under Section 74 is also empowered to initiate and impose penalties in the same proceedings, thereby avoiding duplication.
Read More: GST - ITC allowed as underground transmission cables, switchyards, and related equipment being movable and relocatable [Order attached]
This clarification aims to ensure administrative continuity, prevent jurisdictional disputes, and avoid delays in adjudication. By confirming that successor officers can seamlessly continue the work initiated by their predecessors without additional authorization, the CBIC seeks to streamline processes and maintain efficiency in the administration of GST regulations.
Date: 28 October 2025
Issued By: Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), GST Policy Wing
- CBIC received representations seeking clarification on whether successor or equivalent-rank officers can continue or issue orders under Sections 74A, 75(2), and 122 of the CGST Act.
- Concerns arose when proceedings initiated by one officer remained pending after transfer or reassignment, raising doubts over the jurisdiction of successor officers.
- The clarification also sought to harmonize procedures for rectification orders, continuation of pending proceedings, and penalty adjudication under these provisions.
- Vide the Circular it has been clarified that under Section 74A, the same adjudicating authority, or an equivalent officer in rank and jurisdiction, may pass rectification orders — no fresh authorization is required where jurisdiction remains unchanged.
- Under Section 75(2), if the original officer is transferred or unavailable, the successor officer of the same rank is deemed competent to continue or conclude adjudication and recovery proceedings initiated earlier.
- Under Section 122(1), the proper officer empowered to issue show cause notices under Section 74 may also initiate and impose penalties under Section 122(1) in the same proceedings to prevent duplication.
- The Circular clarified that these interpretations aim to ensure administrative continuity, avoid jurisdictional disputes, and prevent delay in adjudication.
