Unreasoned WBGST s.74, s.74(12) adjudication upheld without independent review; order quashed under Article 226, remanded

HC set aside the appellate order affirming an adjudication under s. 74 of the WBGST Act, 2017, on the ground of non-application of mind and absence of reasons as mandated by s. 74(12). The appellate authority had merely reiterated the adjudicating authority's conclusions without independently examining the petitioner's contention that it acted only as an agent and not as supplier, and without addressing the detailed statement of facts and grounds of appeal. Holding the order to be unreasoned and thus unsustainable under Article 226, HC remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, keeping all issues on merits open.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the appellate authority, while deciding an appeal under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017 against an order passed under Section 74(9), is required to pass a reasoned order in terms of Section 74(12) of the Act and general principles of law.

1.2 Whether the impugned appellate order, being unreasoned and reflecting non-application of mind to the facts and grounds of appeal, can withstand judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Requirement of a reasoned order by the appellate authority under the WBGST Act

Legal framework

2.1 The Court referred to Section 74(12) of the WBGST Act, 2017, noting that it mandates that reasons must be provided to support the ultimate decision.

2.2 The Court reiterated the general legal principle that reasons constitute the "live link between the narrative and the directive", and that absence of reasons can render an order a nullity.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The appellate order, extending over only two pages, was examined. The Court found that the bulk of the order merely recited the history of the case, statement of facts, grounds of appeal, and the prayer.

2.4 The only operative paragraph of the appellate order simply recorded that the appellate authority had gone through the statement of facts, grounds of appeal, the adjudication order, and the documents submitted, and then concluded that there was no reason to interfere, as the proper officer had passed the order "properly as per the provision of law".

2.5 The Court held that such a paragraph fell "short of even a modicum of reasoning" and did not disclose any independent analysis or examination of the facts, documents, or grounds urged in appeal.

Conclusions

2.6 The Court concluded that Section 74(12) of the WBGST Act, 2017, read with general principles requiring recording of reasons, obligates the appellate authority to pass a reasoned order, which was not complied with in the present case.

Issue 2: Sustainability of the impugned appellate order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 On perusal of the impugned appellate order, the Court found that the appellate authority had not applied its mind to the matter and had effectively "dittoed" the adjudication order without delving into the facts of the case.

2.8 The Court noted that the statement of facts and grounds of appeal, annexed to the writ petition, did not appear to have been considered by the appellate authority while arriving at its conclusion.

2.9 The Court characterised the impugned order as "wholly unreasoned" and held that such an order cannot sustain scrutiny in exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusions

2.10 The impugned appellate order dated June 26, 2025 was set aside on the ground of being unreasoned and reflecting non-application of mind.

2.11 The matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeal in accordance with law, with all points kept open and without any adjudication on the merits of the underlying tax dispute.

---