M/S Pace Enterprises vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Act 2017 And Another
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. This order rejected the petitioner's statutory appeal against demands raised by Respondent No. 2 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, via an order dated 20.12.2024. The petitioner received the demand order on 26.12.2024, and a consolidated demand was uploaded on 30.01.2025. The statutory appeal was filed on 29.04.2025 and subsequently rejected solely on the grounds of delay.
Held
The Court held that the impugned communication dated 25.06.2025 is liable to be set aside. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the order rejecting the statutory appeal on grounds of delay lacked any reasoning. The Court emphasized that any judicial or quasi-judicial order must contain reasons, as reasons are the 'soul of an order' and ensure that decisions are not arbitrary but just, aligning with the principles of natural justice. Without reasons, it is difficult for superior authorities to ascertain the correctness of the order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and Respondent No. 1 was granted liberty to pass a fresh reasoned order on the petitioner's statutory appeal in accordance with the law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the 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. The petitioner argued that the rejection order is unsustainable as it fails to provide any justification for dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay. The revenue or State did not record any arguments in opposition to this contention. The core of the petitioner's argument is that any order, particularly one with civil consequences, must be reasoned to uphold the rule of law and principles of natural justice. The absence of reasons makes it difficult for a superior authority to review the decision.
Sections Cited
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.144
CWP-21174-2025 Date of decision : 29.07.2025 M/s Pace Enterprises
.…. Petitioner Versus The Additional Commissioner
of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
and another
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel for the respondents
(appeared through video conferencing).
* * * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)
Through an order dated 20.12.2024, passed by respondent No. 2, demands were made from the petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The said order was served upon the petitioner on 26.12.2024 and on 30.01.2025, a consolidated demand on the basis thereof was also uploaded on the portal of the respondent-department. Order dated 20.12.2024 was challenged by the petitioner through filing of a stat
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.