HEAR & FORGET-JUSTICE SHOULD WIN

'Hear and Forget'

1. Natural justice is not a technical doctrine created by statutes. It is one of the foundational pillars of civilisation itself. Long before codified laws emerged, the basic principles of fairness - the right to be heard, the duty to act impartially, and the obligation to decide reasonably - formed the moral backbone of every just legal system. Civilised governance survives not merely because laws exist, but because power is exercised with fairness. Unfortunately, the GST regime increasingly presents a disturbing picture where the doctrine of natural justice is slowly evaporating behind procedural formalities and administrative rigidity. It is trite that rules of 'natural justice' are not embodied rules. The phrase 'natural justice' is also not capable of a precise definition. The underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action, be it administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial.

2. The statutory promise of appellate justice under the GST regime is gradually collapsing into a mechanical exercise of appearance, recording, and silence. Personal hearings are granted, appearances are marked, submissions are reiterated, and within a matter of minutes the proceedings conclude - not with adjudication, but with uncertainty. The system appears to have perfected a new doctrine: 'Hear and Forget.' The right of appeal is not a decorative formality under the law. It is a substantive safeguard against erroneous adjudication. An appeal represents the taxpayer's legitimate expectation that an independent authority will re-examine the legality, facts, and reasoning of the original order. However, when appellate proceedings are reduced to ritualistic hearings without timely decisions, the remedy itself becomes illusory.

3. The disturbing aspect of the present appellate dysfunction is that proceedings under Section 107 of the CGST Act are essentially civil tax disputes. These are not prosecutions involving blood-related crimes, forensic reconstruction of events, complex criminal trials, or elaborate evidentiary procedures requiring years of examination. In most GST appeals, the core issues are ordinarily confined to interpretation of statutory provisions, examination of documents already available on record, returns, invoices, electronic data, applicability of notifications or circulars, and legal adjudication based on apparent facts. These proceedings generally do not require forensic science laboratories, criminal investigation techniques, prolonged witness examination, or complicated cross-examination processes typically associated with serious criminal litigation. What is fundamentally required is application of mind to the existing material and proper adjudication under law.

4. The practical position being so, another disturbing aspect is the present condition of 'personal hearing' itself. The statutory mandate of hearing under GST is increasingly degenerating into a ceremonial formality devoid of adjudicatory substance. In numerous appellate proceedings, the so-called hearing hardly lasts for five minutes. The order sheet mechanically records that 'the appellant or authorised representative appeared and reiterated the grounds of appeal,' and the proceedings effectively end there. Personal hearing has become an eyewash:

No meaningful discussion.

No examination of records.

No engagement with legal propositions.

No indication of judicial application of mind.

5. The most disturbing feature of the present appellate framework is not merely delay, but institutional indifference to delay. The litigant is heard once - and forgotten thereafter. This state of affairs directly undermines the legislative intent embodied in Section 107(13) of the CGST Act, which provides:

'The Appellate Authority shall, where it is possible to do so, hear and decide every appeal within a period of one year from the date on which it is filed.'

6. The one-year guideline is meant to encourage timely resolution of appeals while recognizing that complexities in certain cases may require additional time for a fair and informed decision. This provision is not an empty procedural ornament. The legislature consciously fixed a timeline because delayed adjudication itself inflicts prejudice upon the taxpayer. Appeals under tax laws are not academic proceedings; they carry serious civil and financial consequences. During pendency of appeals, taxpayers continue to face recovery pressures, attachment proceedings, blockage of working capital, denial of refunds, and prolonged uncertainty regarding their liabilities. In commercial life, uncertainty itself becomes punishment. The prescription of a one-year timeline reflects a legislative recognition that justice delayed in tax administration effectively becomes justice denied.

7. The phrase 'where it is possible to do so' may provide administrative flexibility, but it does not dilute the statutory expectation of timely disposal. It certainly cannot be interpreted as legislative approval for endless pendency. What makes the situation even more disturbing is that a substantial number of appeals do not involve any extraordinary factual complexity or unsettled legal controversy. Many appeal petitions are already covered by well-established legal principles and binding judicial precedents. In such cases, the appellate authority is not expected to rediscover the truth through prolonged investigation. The law is already declared. The facts are already on record. The adjudicatory exercise merely requires application of settled law to admitted facts. Therefore, in many matters, disposal of appeals should not be an impossible institutional burden.

8. On the contrary, binding precedents ought to facilitate quicker adjudication and reduce unnecessary litigation. Yet, despite settled legal positions and availability of judicial guidance, there exists a deafening silence for reasons completely unknown to the appellants. This silence is what converts delay into institutional cruelty. The tragedy is not merely that appeals remain pending. The greater tragedy is that litigants are left in darkness even in cases where the law itself already provides the answer. The appellate authority need not undertake heroic efforts to search for justice when both facts and law have already illuminated the path.

9. Across the country, appeal petitions remain pending for months and years despite completion of hearings. In many cases, written submissions are filed, arguments are concluded, and matters are reserved for orders. Yet no orders are pronounced for long periods. Before disposal, the appellate authority itself gets transferred to another corner of the country. The successor officer then issues fresh notices for personal hearing and restarts the same process. Taxpayers are compelled to repeat the same submissions, reproduce the same documents, and relive the same litigation cycle endlessly. If the appellate authority is unwilling to dispose of the case within a reasonable period, then what for is this 'personal hearing' to pass on the undecided case to the next incumbent to repeat the same without any cogent reasons? Is it because of mandatory provision? In reality appellants are already aggrieved, they have their own dignity and the burden must be relieved by way of speedy disposal of petitions. They cannot be pushed to suffer double mental trauma due to unreasonable delay.

10. Continued inaction in such circumstances creates an impression that the system is not struggling with complexity, but surrendering to indifference. More importantly, Section 107(13) demonstrates that the legislature never intended personal hearings to become ritualistic ceremonies. The statutory mandate is not merely to 'hear' but to 'hear and decide.' A hearing without meaningful adjudication is only a procedural performance. When appeals remain undecided for years after hearings are completed, the appellate remedy itself loses credibility.

11. The appellate mechanism exists to correct errors committed at the adjudication stage. If appellate authorities themselves become inaccessible, unresponsive, or perpetually dormant, the entire corrective structure of the statute stands defeated. In such circumstances, taxpayers begin to perceive the process not as a forum of justice, but as an administrative tunnel without exit. The consequences extend beyond individual hardship. Delayed appellate decisions weaken public confidence in the integrity of tax administration.

12. The most disturbing question, however, still remains unanswered - who is responsible for this institutional anxiety of deciding appeals? When facts are already available on record, when the law is substantially settled by binding judicial precedents, and when Section 107(13) itself expects disposal within one year, what exactly prevents timely adjudication? The appellate authority is not expected to perform forensic investigation in ordinary civil tax disputes. Facts and law largely determine the outcome. Yet, decisions remain suspended in unexplained silence. Such hesitation creates an unavoidable impression that the system has developed a fear of taking responsibility.

13. One fails to understand what exactly the appellate authorities are waiting for before disposing of appeals already governed by settled facts and binding law. When the record is complete and judicial principles are well established, adjudication should naturally follow. Are the authorities waiting for some 'divine inspiration' to descend before deciding cases? Because in many matters, neither complicated factual investigation nor profound legal research is required. The facts already exist. The law is already declared. What remains is only the discharge of statutory responsibility. Continued silence in such circumstances ceases to be mere delay; it begins to resemble institutional paralysis. The law expects adjudication, not meditation.

14. A legal system survives not merely on the existence of remedies, but on their effectiveness. When statutory appeals remain buried in silence despite repeated hearings and settled law, faith in institutional fairness gradually erodes. Justice cannot survive in a system where hearings are remembered only for attendance purposes and forgotten for adjudication purposes. The law never contemplated a machinery that merely records appearances and postpones decisions indefinitely. The GST appellate structure was intended to function as an instrument of correction, accountability, and fairness - not as a warehouse of pending files. A justice delivery system that only hears, but does not decide within a reasonable time, ultimately transforms itself into a system of 'Hear and Forget.'

15. This article is not written to attack the institution of appellate adjudication, but to restore faith in it. The appellate mechanism under the GST law was conceived as a safeguard against arbitrariness and error. Thousands of taxpayers still approach appellate authorities with the legitimate hope that facts will be examined fairly and law will be applied honestly. Most appeals do not seek charity. They seek adjudication. In many cases, the governing principles are already settled by binding judicial precedents. The appellate authority is not expected to discover hidden truths or await divine inspiration. Facts and law are already available. What is required is timely application of mind and discharge of statutory duty. Delay beyond reasonable limits silently converts the right of appeal into a punishment by process.

16. Section 107(13) itself reflects the legislative expectation that appeals should ordinarily be heard and decided within one year. The provision recognizes an important truth - justice delayed in tax administration can destroy businesses, confidence, and credibility. The solution does not lie in more ceremonial hearings or repetitive adjournments. It lies in restoring decisional courage, administrative accountability, and respect for statutory timelines. The GST appellate system still has the opportunity to reassure taxpayers that it remains a forum of justice and not merely a corridor of endless pendency. The hope of appellants should not end at the hearing hall. It must culminate in reasoned adjudication. Otherwise, the system risks being remembered not as one that delivers justice, but merely as one that chooses to 'Hear and Forget.'

Justice should win, even if the system loses.