2026 (8) TMI 1291

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion. 2. Challenge has been raised to the Adjudication Order dated 24.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 1 under section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Tax Period 2021- 2022. 3. Undeniably, the petitioner was put to notice before that order came to be passed. It had also filed reply and had been heard in the proceedings. Grievance is that the impugned order is not reasoned. In that regard, it has been pleaded as below:- "28. That the impugned order, being unreasoned, deprives the petitioner of the ability to effectively assail the same and equally deprives the appellate authority of the means to test the correctness of the reasoning of the adjudicating authority, thereby rendering....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ensure that such reasons can be appropriately consid-ered by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove. The order in the present case is as cryptic as it was in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Negi [2008] 11 SCC 205. Being a cryptic order and for the reasons recorded in that case by this court which we also adopt, the impugned order in the present appeal should meet the same fate." 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue would contend, Adjudication proceeding were occasioned by mismatch in GSTR-3B filed by the petitioner disclosing higher ITC than disclosed in GSTR 2A which is auto populated on the strength of transaction performed. 7. To the extent, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xpression used by the adjudicator may also influence the extent of reasoning, that may be visible. 10. To the extent, on a plain reading of the impugned order, it is apparent that the Adjudication Authority had applied its mind to the dispute in issue, and it has examined within the scope of show cause notice, the reply furnished by the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that the order is completely non-speaking. 11. In the present facts, the assessee was required to show cause on specific issues of difference in GSTR -2A and GSTR- 3B, as also discrepancy noticed in GSTR- 9. Therefore, the burden was on the petitioner to explain those discrepancies by not only filing a reconciliation chart but also ex....