2025 (6) TMI 1501 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice -petitioner did not have adequate notice of the appeal to appear before the Appellate Authority and the appeal petition along with the grounds of appeal was also not served - non-speaking order - HELD THAT - No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the matter pending. Though the consequential direction of setting aside of the order passed by the adjudicating authority is not explicit from the order impugned however since the appellate authority in paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 has been pleased to record that the adjudicating authority has failed to examine the legality of ITC availed by the respondent who is the petitioner herein under the various tables and the petitioner also having not submitted any clarification nor attended the personal hearing and also by noting that the adjudicating authority has failed to discuss the various issues involved and having not passed a speaking order the said appeal was allowed. Although the appellate authority was required to make such further enquiry as may be necessary so as to take a firm decision the same has not been done. The appellate authority has only observed that the adjudicating authority has failed to examine the legality of ITC availed. The above direction is dehors the provisions of Section 107(11) and (12) of the said Act. Thus while setting aside the order impugned including the order passed by the adjudicating authority dated 30th October 2023 let the matter stands remanded back before the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on merits - petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

• Whether the petitioner had adequate notice of the departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, including service of the appeal petition and grounds of appeal.
• Whether the order passed by the Appellate Authority allowing the departmental appeal was valid and whether it explicitly set aside the order of the adjudicating authority.
• Whether the Appellate Authority correctly applied the provisions of the relevant statute, particularly Section 107(11) and (12), in allowing the appeal without conducting a further enquiry or passing a speaking order.
• Whether the adjudicating authority's order dated 30th October, 2023 was legally sustainable, given the alleged failure to examine the legality of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by the petitioner and the absence of a speaking order.
• The procedural propriety and legality of remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication on merits.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Adequacy of Notice and Service of Appeal Documents

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Principles of natural justice and statutory provisions require that a party must be given adequate notice of proceedings against it, including service of appeal petitions and grounds of appeal, to enable effective participation.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The petitioner contended that it was not given adequate notice of the departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, nor was the appeal petition and grounds served. The Court noted this grievance as part of the writ petition's challenge.

Key Evidence and Findings: The record showed that despite the petitioner's claim, the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority. However, the Court did not find explicit evidence in the record confirming proper service or notice.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court implicitly recognized the importance of proper notice but did not explicitly rule on this issue in isolation. Instead, it considered the issue in the broader context of the appellate order's validity.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not appear to dispute the procedural aspects but relied on the appellate order's correctness. The Court's decision to remand suggests concern over procedural propriety.

Conclusions: The Court's recall of the earlier order and directions to reargue the matter indicate that the issue of notice remains significant and unresolved, warranting fresh adjudication.

Issue 2: Validity and Clarity of the Appellate Authority's Order

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under the relevant tax statute, appellate orders must clearly state the outcome, including whether the impugned order is set aside or modified. Section 107(11) and (12) prescribe the appellate authority's powers and procedural requirements.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the operative portion of the appellate order merely recorded that the appeal was allowed but did not explicitly set aside the adjudicating authority's order. The Court found this lack of clarity problematic.

Key Evidence and Findings: Paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 of the appellate order indicated that the adjudicating authority had failed to examine the legality of ITC availed and had not passed a speaking order. However, the appellate authority did not conduct further enquiry or pass a detailed order explaining its decision.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the appellate authority's direction was dehors (beyond) the provisions of Section 107(11) and (12), as it allowed the appeal without conducting necessary enquiries or issuing a speaking order.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was flawed due to these procedural defects. The respondents maintained the appeal's validity. The Court sided with the petitioner's position regarding procedural inadequacies.

Conclusions: The appellate order was set aside for lack of clarity and failure to comply with statutory requirements, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication.

Issue 3: Legality of the Adjudicating Authority's Order and Failure to Examine ITC Legality

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The adjudicating authority is required to pass a speaking order after examining all relevant issues, including the legality of ITC claimed by the taxpayer.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellate authority had noted that the adjudicating authority failed to examine the legality of the ITC availed by the petitioner and had not passed a speaking order. The Court agreed that this was a material defect.

Key Evidence and Findings: The adjudicating authority's order dated 30th October, 2023, was found to be non-speaking and lacking examination of critical issues.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the impugned order could not stand on these grounds and required reconsideration.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner highlighted the adjudicating authority's failure; the respondents relied on the appellate order. The Court found the petitioner's arguments persuasive.

Conclusions: The order of the adjudicating authority was set aside and remanded for fresh decision after proper enquiry and hearing.

Issue 4: Procedural Legitimacy of Remand and Directions for Fresh Adjudication

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Courts have the power to remand matters for fresh adjudication where procedural irregularities or incomplete adjudication occur, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and statutory mandates.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to set aside both the appellate and adjudicating authority's orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted the absence of a speaking order, failure to examine ITC legality, and procedural defects in the appeal process as grounds warranting remand.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court directed the adjudicating authority to issue appropriate notice, afford opportunity of hearing, and decide the matter within eight weeks, in accordance with law.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondents did not oppose the remand; the petitioner sought urgent hearing and fresh adjudication.

Conclusions: The remand was appropriate to ensure lawful and fair adjudication.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Though the consequential direction of setting aside of the order passed by the adjudicating authority is not explicit from the order impugned, however, since the appellate authority in paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 has been pleased to record that the adjudicating authority has failed to examine the legality of ITC availed by