Pradeep Kumar Wadhwani vs. Appellate Authority

Held

The Court quashed both the assessment order dated 22.09.2023 and the appellate order dated 10.06.2025. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that even if no reply was filed by the petitioner, the Assessment Officer was not supposed to pass a non-speaking order mechanically. Since the assessment involved tax, penalty, and interest, reasons were required to be assigned. Concerning the second issue, the Court noted that the appeal was dismissed for a delay of 35 days. Given that the original order was ex-parte and the delay was due to alleged portal malfunction, the appellate authority should have considered the delay. Relying on previous judgments of the High Court in similar matters (Agrawal Wheels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of M.P. and M/s Light Group vs. State of M.P.), the Court remanded the matter to the Assessment Officer. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show-cause notice within 30 days, after which the Assessment Officer will pass a fresh order after providing a hearing opportunity. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Wadhwani, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the State Tax Officer, Jabalpur Circle–II, under Section 74 of the SGST Act, 2017. He also challenged an order dated 10.06.2025 by the Appellate Authority, State Tax and Joint Commissioner, Jabalpur, which dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that a GST portal malfunction prevented him from receiving the notice, thus hindering his ability to contest proceedings or file an appeal within the prescribed time. The appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 35 days.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the State Tax Officer is valid, considering it is alleged to be non-speaking and passed mechanically due to the petitioner's non-filing of a reply, and if the authority was required to assign reasons even without a reply? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, given the petitioner's claim of a GST portal malfunction preventing timely filing and the ex-parte nature of the original assessment order? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that a malfunction in the GST portal prevented him from receiving the notice and contesting the proceedings or filing an appeal within the stipulated time. He also argued that the assessment order was non-speaking and passed mechanically, and that the appellate authority should have considered the delay in filing the appeal, especially since the original order was ex-parte. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or State. It notes that the petitioner did not file any reply or objection to the show-cause notice.