TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1698
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- "(i) the order dated the 21.05.2024 (as contained in Annexure-P 13) passed by the respondent no.2 dismissing the appeal without consideration of Foreign Trade Policy, Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG), Scheme and the statutory provisions contained in Section 54(1) of the Central/Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called the Act) read with CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter called the Rules) being contrary to the policy of the Government of India to promote export and also the statutory provisions contained in the Act, the Rules made thereunder and also the circulars issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, New Delhi being wholly illegal and without jur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted application for refund of tax paid on capital goods on 08.05.2023. the respondent authorities are of the view that petitioner is not entitled for refund of tax paid on capital goods, resultantly notice has been issued on 18.06.2023 followed by brief reasons. The petitioner had submitted explanation/reply to the notice dated 18.06.2023 on 28.06.2023. 3. Perusal of the reply to the notice, it is evident that he has quoted number of circulars insofar as claiming refund of tax paid on capital goods. However, the order dated 25.07.2023 to the effect that the petitioner is not entitled for refund of tax paid on capital goods has been passed without their being consideration of petitioner's reply, in particularly, various provisions includi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. However, he wants to sustain the action of the adjudicating authority order in the guise of decision of the appellate authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Facts are not disputed. Core issue involved in the present lis is whether the adjudicating authority who is exercising quasi judicial function under the CGST Act is required to take note of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427.. Paragraph no. 40 reads as under:- "40. In Kranti Associates [(2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852] this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in SCC para 47 of the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the petitioner's case or not. In other words, reasons should have been assigned by the adjudicating authority to the extent that those circulars are not applicable to the case or not? In the absence, of these material information adjudicating authority order is liable to be set aside. No doubt, the appellate authority has considered petitioner's appeal and made certain observation in favour of petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner is helpless in not submitting effective Appeal. In other words, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice. Quasi judicial authorities are bound to pass reasoned and speaking order, for the reason that such of those orders are amenable to judicial review. 9. Taking note of these facts a....