M/S Pace Enterprises vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax Act 2017 And Another
Facts
M/s Pace Enterprises (petitioner) received a consolidated demand order dated 20.12.2024 from Respondent No. 2 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before Respondent No. 1 on 29.04.2025, challenging the demand order. The appeal was rejected by Respondent No. 1 through an order dated 25.06.2025, citing delay. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the rejection order, arguing that it lacked reasons for dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order/communication dated 25.06.2025, rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal on the ground of delay, is liable to be set aside because it does not provide any reason for the dismissal. The Court reasoned that every order, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, must contain reasons as reasons are the soul of an order. Orders entailing civil consequences must be backed by sound reasons to ensure they are not arbitrary and that justice is done. The absence of reasons makes it difficult for a superior authority or court to ascertain the correctness of the order appealed against. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 and granted liberty to Respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh reasoned order on the petitioner's statutory appeal filed against the order of Respondent No. 2 dated 20.12.2024, in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 25.06.2025, rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal on the ground of delay, is liable to be set aside for not providing any reasons for the dismissal. Contentions: Petitioner: The impugned order dated 25.06.2025 is liable to be set aside because it does not contain any reason as to why the petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. Every order, whether judicial or quasi-judicial, must contain reasons as it is a declaration of law. Reasons are the soul of an order, and every order entailing civil consequences must be backed by sound reasons to ensure it was not a result of whim or fancy and that justice was done. Revenue/State: The judgment records no argument for the respondents.
Sections Cited
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH
Sr. No.145 M/s Pace Enterpris The Additional Co of Central Goods a and another
CORAM : HON
HON
Present : Mr. S Mr. G
Mr. R
(appe
DEEPAK SIBAL,
Throu demands were mad Act, 2017. The sa 30.01.2025, a cons portal of the respo the petitioner throu appeal was filed o delay and conveye Such rejection of t the instant petition
Learn communication da ground of delay, is any reason as to wh H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYA ses
Versus ommissioner
and Services Tax Act, 2017
N'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK S N'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BA Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, w Gurdeep Singh, Advocate, for the Rishabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Cou eared through video conferencing) * * * * * J. (Oral) ugh an order dated 20.12.2024, de from the petitioner under the C aid order was served upon the p solidated demand on the basis th ondent-department. Order dated ugh filing of a statutory appeal b on 29.04.2025. The said appeal ed to the petitioner through form G the petitioner’s appeal is the subj n. ned senior counsel for the petitio ated 25.06.2025, rejecting the peti s liable to be
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.