M/S Pace Enterprises vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Act 2017 And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pace Enterprises, is challenging an order dated 25.06.2025 (Form GST APL-02) passed by Respondent No. 1, the Additional Commissioner, which rejected their statutory appeal on grounds of delay. The original demand order was passed by Respondent No. 2 on 20.12.2024, served on the petitioner on 26.12.2024, and a consolidated demand was uploaded on 30.01.2025. The petitioner filed their statutory appeal on 29.04.2025, which was subsequently rejected by Respondent No. 1. The present petition seeks to set aside the rejection order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned communication dated 25.06.2025, rejecting the petitioner’s statutory appeal on the ground of delay, is liable to be set aside. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the communication lacked any reasons to support the decision to dismiss the appeal due to delay. The Court emphasized that any judicial or quasi-judicial order must contain reasons, as reasons are considered the 'soul of an order'. Without reasons, an order cannot be justified as not being a result of whim or fancy, and it also hinders a superior authority's ability to ascertain the correctness of the order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to Respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh reasoned order on the petitioner's statutory appeal in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned communication dated 25.06.2025, rejecting the petitioner’s statutory appeal on the ground of delay, is liable to be set aside for want of reasons? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned communication rejecting the appeal on delay is unsustainable as it lacks any reasons to justify the dismissal. The petitioner relies on the principle that any order, especially one with civil consequences, must be reasoned to ensure it is not arbitrary and aligns with natural justice. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents regarding the absence of reasons in the rejection order.