Case Law Details
New Shanti Restaurant Vs State of Up And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In the case of New Shanti Restaurant vs. State of UP and Others, the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of rejecting GST appeals solely on the grounds of delayed submission without providing a proper explanation. The petitioner, New Shanti Restaurant, filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of its GST appeal by the appellate authorities. The petitioner argued that the appeal was rejected without any specific reasons, except for a notice citing a delay in submission. The State, represented by its counsel, defended the rejection, stating that the appeal was time-barred, and the reasoning was available on the GST portal.
However, the Court ruled that the appellate authority’s decision was inadequate as it failed to provide valid reasoning. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court emphasized that providing reasons for administrative and judicial orders is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. Without detailed reasoning, the decision becomes subjective and susceptible to challenge. The Court reiterated that any administrative or judicial authority must offer a reasoned order, as failing to do so renders the decision unsustainable.
Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and allowed the writ petition. The case was remanded back to the appellate authority with instructions to reconsider the appeal and issue a fresh, reasoned order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard. The authority was directed to resolve the matter within three months.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. In pursuance of earlier order, instructions have come, which are taken on record.
3. Similar controversy is involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions, as such, with the consent of the parties , both the aforesaid writ petition are being decided by a common order treating Writ Tax No. 1597 of 2024 as leading case.
WRIT TAX No. – 1597 of 2024
4. By means of present petition, the petitioner is, inter alia, praying for the following relief:-
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.7.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 Additional Commissioner Grade -2, Appeal 1st State Excise, Prayagraj (contained in Annexure No. 1 to writ petition) as well as impugned order dated 8.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 Assistant Commissioner, State Excise Division -3 Prayagraj (contained in Annexure No. 2 to writ petition) during pendency of present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. “
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the proper officer, an appeal was preferred on electronic mode but the same has been rejected by the impugned order without assigned any reason. He submits that the petitioner has only communicated the order through a notice that his appeal has been rejected. He further submits that neither any order has been passed nor any reason has been assigned for rejecting the appeal.
6. Per contra, Arvind Mishra, learned ACSC has supported the impugned orders and submits that when the appeal is filed in GST APL -01 for which the acknowledgement has been issued and thereafter GST APL -02 of final acknowledgement has been issued on the GST portal and if it is found that the appeal is not acceptable, the same has been rejected. He further submits that while rejecting the appeal, the reason is reflected and can be downloaded from the official website. Since in the case in hand the appeal has been filed beyond the limitation, therefore, the same has been rejected as time barred.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records as well as the instructions so supplied by the learned Standing Counsel.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.7.2024 wherein no reason has been assigned. On the strength of instruction filed today, learned Standing Counsel has tried to support the action of the respondent, however, on perusal of the instructions, it shows that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. It only refers the delay in submission of appeal, which shows that while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, the appellate authority has not applied its mind.
9. It is settled law that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. It is well settled that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
10. Highlighting this rule, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla & Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, M/s Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India, 1969 (3) SCC 868 have observed that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Once the reason has not been assigned by the competent authority for levying the penalty then on this ground alone, the impugned orders cannot be sustained.
11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by this Court, the impugned orders passed in both the writ petitions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
12. Both the writ petitions succeed and are allowed.
13. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority, who shall proceed de novo and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today.
Author Bio
