TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
In NEW SHANTI RESTAURANT, M/S SHAMSHIDA ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS - 2024 (10) TMI 206 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT the petitioner in the present writ petition, was aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 08.06.2023. He filed an appeal before the First appellate authority. The First Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 22.07.2024. Against the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade – 2, the first appellate authority, the petitioner field the present writ tax before the High Court.
The petitioner submitted the following before the High Court-
- Against the order of the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed the appeal on electronic mode.
- The said appeal has been rejected by the First Appellate Authority without assigning any reason.
- Neither any order has been passed nor any reason has been assigned for rejecting the appeal.
The respondent submitted the following before the High Court-
- When the appeal is filed in GST APL – 01, proper acknowledgement was issued to the petitioner.
- Thereafter GST APL – 02 of final acknowledgement has been issued on the GST portal.
- Since the appeal is not acceptable the same has been rejected.
- While rejecting the appeal the reason is reflected and can be downloaded from the official website.
- The appeal has been filed beyond the limitation and therefore the same has been rejected by the First Appellate Authority.
The High Court considered the submissions of both the parties. The High Court observed that the appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority in which no reason for rejection of appeal has been assigned. On perusal of the instructions that no reason whatsoever has been assigned for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The order 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.
The High Court was of the view that it is settled law that reason is s the heartbeat of every conclusion. The order passed without assigning any reason cannot be sustained. The order passed is against the principles of Natural Justice. The necessity to record the reasons is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. The High Court also observed that not only the judicial order, but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recording in it.
In this regard, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT & LEASING, KOTA VERSUS M/S SHUKLA & BROTHERS - 2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT in which the Supreme Court observed that the administrative authority and the Tribunal are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. The Supreme Court held that once the reason has not been assigned by the competent authority for levying the penalty then on this ground also on the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.