2026 (2) TMI 1260 - HC - GST

Duty to Give Reasons: appellate authority must address specific challenges to primary evidence; failure warrants remand for fresh consideration.

Challenge concerned an appellate order that rejected an appeal without engaging specific substantive grounds alleging a mismatch between the laboratory ... Detention of goods u/s 129(1) - reliability and admissibility of laboratory test report - obligation to consider grounds raised in reply and appeal - non-speaking appellate order / failure to assign reasons - remand for fresh consideration by appellate authority - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner sold Mixed Linear Alpha Olefins to M/s Rajesh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Ranchi, Jharkhand and invoice was prepared, E-way Bill was also prepared and the consignment was sent through transported route the subject tanker. The same was intercepted on 10.02.2025. MOV-02 came to be issued on 11.02.2025. Thereafter physical verification report was issued on 16.02.2025 GST MOV-04 and on 16.02.2025 the goods were detained by the respondent no. s2 under Section 129 (1) MOV-06. A show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner on 18.02.2025 form GST TRC-01 accompany which the analytical report of Sri Ganesh Analytical Lab. The writ petitioner tendered its reply to the show cause notice on 18.02.2025. As a matter of fact, once certain grounds are raised either in show cause notice or in the memo of appeal, then the adjudicating authority is under obligation to consider the same might be in its discussion and conclusion, it might not according to the submission but at least this much is expected that the contentions are to be dealt with. Since the contentions have not been dealt with and only conclusions have been recorded without assigning reason in arriving to the same. Thus, the order cannot be sustained. Since the writ petitioner had taken several grounds in the memo of appeal which have not been considered, thus in the fitness of the matter, the matter needs to be revisited by the appellate authority. While remitting back the matter to the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall deal with each and every contentions and pass an order with independent application. The writ petition stands disposed of. Issues: Whether the appellate order dated 06.06.2025 rejecting the appeal without dealing with the specific grounds (including discrepancy in laboratory sample description and report) is sustainable and whether the matter should be remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration.Analysis: The writ petitioner, a registered dealer under the U.P. GST regime, challenged detention of goods and penalty under Section 129(1) after a laboratory report described the sample as a 'lubricating oil sample' while the invoice declared the goods as Mixed Linear Alpha Olefins. The petitioner raised this specific discrepancy in the reply to the show cause notice and in the memo of appeal, contending that the sample/test did not correspond to the declared goods. The Court examined the record and found that the appellate authority's order records conclusions but does not independently address or reason upon the substantive grounds raised by the petitioner concerning the accuracy and reliability of the laboratory report and related factual contentions. Given that the petitioner had advanced specific objections going to the root of the evidence relied upon, the appellate authority was obliged to consider those grounds and record reasons in relation thereto. The absence of such consideration vitiates the appellate decision-making process and warrants fresh adjudication by the appellate authority.Conclusion: The appellate order dated 06.06.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to decide afresh after dealing with each contention raised by the petitioner within two months.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned appellate order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration; this provides the petitioner an opportunity for a reasoned appellate decision on the substantive grounds raised.Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellant raises specific substantive grounds challenging the accuracy or reliability of primary evidence, the appellate authority must consider and record reasoned findings on those grounds; failure to do so renders the appellate order unsustainable and justifies remand for fresh adjudication.