1 2025:HHC:20033 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6135 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.06.2025 _____________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & others …Respondents ___________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No ________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Kunal Verma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate with Ms. Godawari, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh Raj and Ms. Astha Kohli, Advocates, for respondents No. 2 to 4. ________________________________________________ Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 19.04.2024 issued by the respondent no.4 as in (Annexure P-2) where in respondent No.2 has rejected the appeal dated 24.03.2024 as in (Annexure P-2) on the ground of few days delay as the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice by not deciding the appeal on merit. AND/OR ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari directing the respondents to stay the operation order dated 19.04.2024 Annexure P-2 passed by Respondent No.4 2 2025:HHC:20033 during pendency of writ petition and direct the respondent No.3 & 4 to revoke the cancellation of CGST Registration in the interest of law and justice.” 2. On 25.04.2025, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the following order:- “The Court stands informed that names of office of learned Advocate General and Deputy Solicitor General of India are not being reflected in the cause list. Registry of reflected their names in the Cause List. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the appeal that was preferred by the petitioner has been rejected vide Annexure P-1, which is a non-speaking order. This appeal was filed by the petitioner against order of cancellation of his registration. Learned Central Government Counsel to have specific instructions on this issue only as to whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed in terms of Annexure P-1 or there is a separate speaking order passed by the appellate Authority/Bench. List on 09.05.2025.” 3. It is not in dispute that there is no order passed on the appeal filed by the petitioner other than the one annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1 dated 24.03.2025. Bare perusal of the such order goes to indicate that it is breft of any reasons whatsoever and therefore, on this ground alone is not sustainable and, as such, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event, by 14.08.2025. 3 2025:HHC:20033 4. While deciding the appeal, the Appellate Authority shall take into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Tax No. 1597 of 2024 titled as New Shanti Restaurant Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others, decided on 30.09.2024. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s) if any. 26th June, 2025 (Sumit) (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge