Mittal Agro Private LTD. Thru. Its Director Shri Sukkhu Lal Chandwani vs. Commissioner ,Commercial Tax,U.P. Lko. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the appellate order dated July 4, 2023, was a non-speaking order and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the appellate authority had failed to consider the material filed by the petitioner along with the memo of appeal, which demonstrated that the ITC was claimed based on transactions through banking channels and duly uploaded documents. The reasoning was that a non-speaking order, which does not address the contentions and evidence presented, is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must apply their mind to the material on record and pass reasoned orders. Consequently, the appellate order was quashed, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and considering all the material on record.

Facts

Mittal Agro Private Ltd. (the petitioner) is challenging an order dated June 24, 2022, passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, and a subsequent appellate order dated July 4, 2023, which dismissed its appeal. The initial order assessed the petitioner to pay Rs. 26,95,757.40 in Input Tax Credit (ITC) along with penalty. The grounds for the assessment were that the petitioner claimed ITC based on supplies from a firm that allegedly did not exist. The petitioner contended that the transactions were conducted through banking channels and supported by uploaded documents. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed without considering the submitted documents and case laws. The High Court noted that the appellate order was non-speaking and did not consider the material on record.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dated 04.07.2023, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal without considering the material on record and the petitioner's submissions, is a non-speaking order violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority failed to consider the documents submitted with the appeal, including proof of banking channel transactions and uploaded documents, and that the appellate order was passed without application of mind. The petitioner relied on the principle that a non-speaking order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent revenue.