Barkat Ali vs. UOI And Others

Held

The High Court held that the impugned order dated April 8, 2025, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation without providing an opportunity of hearing and without passing a speaking order, could not be sustained in the eyes of law. The Court found that the facts and circumstances of the present case were similar to those in the previously decided case of Anil Kumar (supra). Therefore, the Court applied the principle of parity and quashed the appellate order. The matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority to proceed de novo. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass an appropriate, reasoned, and speaking order after giving the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. The Appellate Authority was also directed to decide the matter expeditiously, not later than January 4, 2026. The parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on December 3, 2025. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal cannot be dismissed on technical grounds like limitation without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing and without a reasoned order, especially when the case is similar to a precedent where such dismissal was set aside.

Facts

The petitioner, Barkat Ali, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: an order dated March 19, 2024, by which his GST registration was cancelled suo motu by Respondent No. 3 (likely a GST authority), and an order dated April 8, 2025, by which his appeal against the cancellation was dismissed by the Appellate Authority solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that the appeal was dismissed without providing an opportunity of hearing and without a speaking order. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in CWP No. 8022 of 2025 (Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and Others), arguing that his case was similarly situated.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.04.2025, dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation without providing an opportunity of hearing and without passing a speaking order, is legally sustainable under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the dismissal of his appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without affording him an opportunity to be heard and without a reasoned order, was illegal, erroneous, and arbitrary. He relied on the judgment in Anil Kumar (supra) to assert that his case was similar and deserved similar treatment. The petitioner sought quashing of both the cancellation order and the appellate order. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents (Union of India, State, and likely the GST authorities) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the merits of the petitioner's case or the validity of the cancellation order. Their primary contention, as reflected in the appellate order, was that the appeal was barred by limitation. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents opposing the petitioner's claim for a de novo hearing or challenging the applicability of the Anil Kumar judgment.