Court overturns decision, citing lack of reasons. Emphasizes importance of natural justice in administrative proceedings.

The High Court set aside the impugned endorsement by the first respondent, ruling that the rejection of the appeal without reasons violated principles of natural justice. The Court directed the first respondent to reconsider the appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons and considering all relevant material before making a decision. The case highlighted the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging impugned endorsement by first respondent, application of principles of natural justice, validity of rejection of appeal without reasons.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transport contractor registered under the GST Act, hired goods conveyance from a third party to transport metal scrap consignment. The goods were intercepted by the second respondent, who doubted the consignor's bonafide and initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, detaining the goods. The consigner and petitioner were unable to provide evidence due to lockdown restrictions. The second respondent passed a confiscation order, later withdrawn, and the petitioner appealed to the first respondent. The first respondent rejected the appeal without assigning reasons, leading to the petitioner filing a writ petition challenging the impugned endorsement.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the first respondent failed to consider the material presented and rejected the appeal on unwarranted grounds, violating principles of natural justice. The learned A.G.A. for respondents conceded that no reasons were provided for rejecting the appeal and no opportunity was given to the petitioner before issuing the impugned endorsement. The High Court observed that the impugned endorsement was not a speaking order, as it lacked reasons and failed to consider the material presented by the petitioner. The first respondent's rejection of the appeal without proper consideration was deemed arbitrary and against principles of natural justice.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned endorsement and remitting the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration. The first respondent was directed to pass an appropriate order within three months, considering the appeal afresh and in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized the importance of providing reasons and considering all relevant material before rejecting an appeal, highlighting the principles of natural justice that must be adhered to in such proceedings.

---