Anil Kumar Vs Union of India And Others (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that rejection of GST appeal without assigning specific reasons for the rejection thereof is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, matter restored back to Appellate Authority for denovo proceedings.
Facts- The petitioner is a registered tax payer under Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and he is owner and driver of sole commercial vehicle Mahindra Bolero. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been suo-moto cancelled under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017, only on the ground of non-filing of GST return from the period April, 2023 to February, 2025.
Conclusion- It is not in dispute that petitioner had filed an appeal which has been rejected vide impugned order dated 08.04.2025, wherein, no reasons for rejection thereof have been assigned. The only ground that has been given in the GST APL-02 that has been uploaded on the website is “reasons for rejection-delay in submission of appeal”, which shows that while rejecting the appeal, the Appellate Authority has not at all applied its mind and assigned reasons for rejection of appeal.
