2025 (6) TMI 833 - HC - GST

Judicial Intervention Nullifies Ex Parte GST Order Due to Lack of Reasoned Findings Under Section 107(12)

Sudarshan Sarker Versus The Union of India & Ors.

HC allowed the writ petition challenging the ex parte order under GST Act. Despite multiple hearing opportunities, the appellate authority's order was ... Challenge to order passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 - petitioner submits that the appellate authority had decided the matter ex parte without providing further opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to present his case, especially since he is a 73 year old person - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in this case it would transpire that the petitioner was afforded with repeated opportunities of personal hearing. The petitioner did not avail the same. Revenue would however, contend that the petitioner being an aged person and dependent upon tax consultant, had no fault in not availing the benefit of personal appearance since, the tax consultant who was entrusted with the duty to represent him did not appear. Although, the aforesaid ground does not appear to be justified, however, taking into consideration the fact that the order impugned is an unreasoned order and does not comply with the provisions of Section 107 (12) of the said Act and since there appears to be no reasons for rejecting the appeal on merit, the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, while setting aside the order dated 31st December 2024 passed by the appellate authority, the matter remanded back to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication on merit. The writ petition is disposed of. The Calcutta High Court, presided by Raja Basu Chowdhury, J., addressed a writ petition challenging the appellate authority's order dated 31st December 2024 under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority decided the matter ex parte without granting a personal hearing, especially considering the petitioner's advanced age (73 years). Further, reliance was placed on Section 107(12) of the Act, asserting that the appellate authority must deliver a 'speaking order' adjudicating the appeal on merits irrespective of the petitioner's presence, citing Madhusudan Banik v. State of West Bengal, 2025 (4) TMI 94.The CGST authorities countered that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for personal hearing but failed to appear, negating any claim of denial of natural justice. The Court found that although the petitioner did not avail the hearing opportunities, the impugned order was an unreasoned, non-speaking order violating Section 107(12). Consequently, the Court held that the order 'cannot be sustained,' set it aside, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits with compliance to statutory requirements.The writ petition was disposed of with directions for a reasoned order on merit by the appellate authority.