M/S SUNDAR ENGINEERING WORKS v. ADDITITIONAL COMMISSIONER, GRADE-2 (APPEAL)-II, STATE TAX MEERUT UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
WTAX/1530/2025 · 2025-05-19
Piyush Agrawal
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38535 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38535 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84002 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1530 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Sundar Engineering Works Respondent :- Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-Ii, State Tax Meerut Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Sri R.R. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. In pursuance of the earlier order of this Court, Shri O.P. Pandey, Additional Commissioner, Grade-2, (Appeal)-II, State Tax, Meerut/respondent no.1, is personally present before this Court, who has been identified by Shri R. S. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
3. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-II, State Tax, Meerut/respondent no.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of provision of Section 107(12) of the G.S.T. Act, which provides that the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal, shall state the point for determination, the decision thereof and the reason for such decision. He further submits that by the impugned order, the appeal has been dismissed by non- speaking order as well as not on merit, but merely on the premises that the petitioner has failed to adduce the evidence.
5. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shukla and Brothers, reported in 2010 (4) SCC 785.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned
order and submits that the petitioner was given ample opportunity but in his wisdom, he did not appear and therefore, the authorities were compelled to pass the impugned order. He further submits that since the bill, bilty and E-way bill was incomplete and without surveying, the photocopy has been filed and therefore, it may not be relied upon.
7. He further submits that the petitioner is duty bound to appear on the date fixed, but did not discharge his duties.
8. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
9. The record shows that the impugned order has been passed by the appellate authority without any discussion on the merits of the case. The appellate authority ought to have record its own conclusion independently in the case of affirming the assessment order, but without assigning any reason, the affirmation of the assessment order cannot be justified.
10. The Section 107 (12) of the G.S.T. Act specifically contemplates the procedure to be adopted by the appellate authority while passing the assessment order. Section 107 (12) specifically provides that while disposing the appeal, the order shall be in writing stating the point for consideration, the discretion therein and the reason for such decision.
11. The perusal of the impugned order does not provide any of the conditions as stipulated under Section 107 (12) of the G.S.T. Act.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shukla Brothers (supra) has held that non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice.
13. In view of the above facts as stated, the matter requires re-consideration.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned for deciding afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all the stakeholder, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 20.5.2025 Pravesh Mishra Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad