2025 (6) TMI 2037 - HC - GST

Suo moto cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - non-filing of GST return from the period April 2023 to February 2025 - rejection on the ground of time limitation - not assigning any reasons or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while considering application for delay - HELD THAT - It is settled law that reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity. Equally settled is the preposition that not only the judicial order but also the administrative order must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx it can by its silence render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform the appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Nonapplication of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. Thus what stand settled by today is that the administrative authority and the tribunal are obliged to give reasons absence whereof would render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Once the reason has not been assigned by the competent authority for levying the penalty then on this ground alone the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 08.04.2025 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed and set aside - the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority who shall proceed de-novo and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - petition disposed off by way of remand.

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter were:

(i) Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017, on the ground of non-filing of GST returns over an extended period was justified and proportionate;

(ii) Whether the appellate authority was correct in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing, without assigning any reasons or providing an opportunity for hearing;

(iii) Whether the failure of the appellate authority to record reasons for rejection of the appeal amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice and rendered the order liable to be quashed;

(iv) The extent and nature of the obligation on quasi-judicial and administrative authorities to record reasons in their orders, especially when such orders adversely affect a party;

(v) The consequences of non-application of mind and absence of reasoned orders in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy and Proportionality of GST Registration Cancellation

The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled suo-motu under Section 29 of the CGST Act for non-filing of returns from April 2023 to February 2025. The petitioner admitted non-filing but contended that tax dues had been discharged and that the cancellation was disproportionate, suggesting that a lesser penalty could have sufficed.

While the Court noted the factual background, the primary focus was not on the correctness of cancellation per se but on procedural fairness and the manner in which appellate remedies were handled. The respondents did not dispute the facts but relied on the statutory provisions empowering cancellation for non-compliance. The Court did not delve deeply into proportionality but implicitly recognized that procedural safeguards must accompany such drastic actions.

2. Rejection of Appeal on Ground of Delay Without Reasons

The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal against cancellation solely on the ground of delay of 277 days without assigning any reasons or affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the order due to his accountant's health issues and urged that the authorities failed to follow fair procedure.

The Court observed that the appellate order uploaded on the website merely stated "reasons for rejection-delay in submission of appeal" without any elaboration or application of mind. This absence of reasons was held to be a fundamental procedural infirmity.

3. Requirement to Record Reasons in Administrative and Quasi-Judicial Orders

The Court extensively reviewed settled legal principles and authoritative precedents on the necessity of recording reasons. It emphasized that recording reasons is the "heartbeat" of every conclusion and an indispensable part of natural justice. The Court cited a landmark judgment which summarized the law as follows:

Judicial and quasi-judicial authorities must record reasons supporting their conclusions.
Reasons ensure transparency, objectivity, and fairness, preventing arbitrary decisions.
Recording reasons facilitates judicial review and appellate scrutiny.
Reasons reassure affected parties by explaining the basis of adverse decisions, enabling meaningful exercise of appeal rights.
Failure to record reasons amounts to denial of justice and renders orders unsustainable.

The Court further highlighted that the obligation to record reasons applies irrespective of whether the decision is subject to appeal or revision, and that reasons need not be as elaborate as judicial judgments but must be clear and explicit to demonstrate due consideration of the issues.

Numerous Supreme Court precedents were cited to reinforce these principles, including rulings that:

Administrative decisions affecting rights must be reasoned.
Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity and safeguard against arbitrariness.
Reasoned orders are essential for maintaining faith in the justice delivery system and upholding rule of law.
Right to reasons is now regarded as a component of human rights jurisprudence and due process.

4. Application of Law to the Present Facts

Applying these principles, the Court found that the appellate authority's order dismissing the appeal on delay grounds without any reasons or hearing was arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The absence of a reasoned order rendered the appellate decision legally unsustainable.

The Court noted that non-application of mind is reflected in the failure to assign reasons. It held that every order by a public authority must disclose due application of mind, which is best demonstrated by recording reasons. The lack of reasons indicated arbitrariness and denial of justice.

5. Treatment of Competing Arguments

The respondents argued that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to inordinate delay. However, the Court emphasized that procedural fairness requires that even in cases of delay, the authority must consider the reasons for delay, hear the party, and record reasons for acceptance or rejection of the delay application. A mere mechanical rejection without reasons is impermissible.

The petitioner's explanation of ignorance due to accountant's health issues was not expressly accepted or rejected by the Court but the procedural lapse in not considering such explanations was underscored.

6. Conclusions

The Court concluded that the impugned appellate order could not be sustained for want of reasons and fair procedure. It quashed the appellate order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for de novo consideration. The appellate authority was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court also fixed a timeline for expeditious disposal.

Significant Holdings:

The Court's crucial legal reasoning is encapsulated in the following verbatim excerpts:

"Reasons is the heartbeat of every conclusion. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. One of the most important aspect for necessitating to record reason is that it substitutes subjectivity with objectivity."

"Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at."

"Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected."

"The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before the higher forum."

"Nonapplication of mind by the authority making the order is only one of the forms of arbitrariness. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the person making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question."

The core principles established are:

Administrative and quasi-judicial authorities are mandated to record clear, cogent, and explicit reasons for their decisions, especially when such decisions adversely affect individuals.
Failure to record reasons constitutes a breach of natural justice and renders orders liable to be quashed.
Reasoned orders are essential for ensuring transparency, fairness, judicial accountability, and effective appellate and supervisory review.
Even where appeals are barred by delay, authorities must consider and record reasons for condonation or rejection of delay applications after hearing the affected party.

The final determinations on the issues are:

The cancellation of GST registration was not directly adjudicated but the procedural fairness in appellate proceedings was found wanting.
The appellate order dismissing the appeal solely on delay grounds without reasons was quashed.
The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with directions to pass a reasoned, speaking order after hearing the petitioner.

← Previous Next →