TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Even otherwise, on 24 November 2025, we had made the following order posting this matter for final disposal:- "1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Chavan submits that in this case the Respondents are not passing any 'speaking order' under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act even though the Petitioner paid the customs duty 'under protest'. 3. Mr. Chavan submits that the issue raised in this Petition is covered by the case of Canon India Private Limited Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.9937 of 2025. 4. Accordingly, we post this matter on 01 December 2025 for directions/disposal." 4. The Petitioner vide Exh. 19 Bills of Entry import....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was followed by repeated reminders dated 18 May 2023, 1 April 2024, 6 January 2025 and 18 August 2025. Still, no speaking order has been made by the second Respondent. 10. The Respondents' not passing any speaking orders in this matter is a gross dereliction of their duty. Firstly, the Commissioner (Appeal)'s remand order binds these Respondents, in terms of which the speaking order should have been made within some reasonable period. In any event, this Court, in the case of Canon India Private Limited Vs. Union of India 2025 (35) STR 137 Bom., this Court has held that it is the duty of the Customs Authorities to decide the importer's claim by passing a speaking order. This Court has further held that by not passing such speaking orders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iolating Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits the levy or collection of tax except by authority of law. 18.1. In this context, useful guidance may be drawn from the decision in M/s. Kranti Associates (P) Ltd & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 852 : 2010 SCC OnLine SC 987 at page 50429, wherein, this Court emphasized that fairness, transparency, and accountability are inseparable from the duty to provide reasons. The Court held that failure to furnish reasons violates the principles of natural justice and renders the right of appeal or judicial review illusory. In paragraph 51 of the judgment, the Court distilled the following key principles: "a. In India the judici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te rights under the CGST Act, 2017. Such adherence is in consonance with the constitutional mandate under Article 265 of the Constitution of India. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, and taking into account that objections were filed, payment was stated to have been made under protest due to business exigencies, and the appellant seeks to challenge the levy, the proper officer was under a clear statutory obligation to pass a final order under section 129(3) in Form GST MOV-09 and DRC-07. The refusal by the High Court to direct the passing of such an order, has the effect of frustrating the appellant's statutory right to appeal and is contrary to well established legal principles governing tax adjudication and procedural fairn....