Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 26 June, 2025
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No.8022 of 2025
Decided on: 26th June, 2025
Anil Kumar .......Petitioner
.
versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Arvinder Arora and
Ms.Vidushi Sharma, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. V.B. Verma, Central
Government Counsel for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G with
Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Addl.
A.G and Ms.Sharmila Patial,
Addl. A.G for respondent No.2.
Mr. Vijay Arora, Senior
Advocate with Ms.Godavari,
Advocate for respondents No.3
and 4.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
With the consent of the parties, the case is taken
up for final hearing.
2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the
following substantive relief:-
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
2
“(a) Issuance of writ in nature of Certiorari for quashing of
impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-2)
whereby GST registration of the petitioner was
cancelled su-moto by the respondent no.3 and
.
impugned order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-4)
whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the
impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (P-2) was dismissed
only on the ground of barred by limitation, illegally,
erroneously and arbitrarily.”
3. The petitioner is a registered tax payer under
Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) and he
is owner and driver of sole commercial vehicle Mahindra
Bolero.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
19.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3,
whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been suo-
moto cancelled under Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 read
with Rule 21 of the CGST Rules, 2017, only on the ground of
non-filing of GST return from the period April, 2023 to
February, 2025.
5. According to the petitioner, he was supposed to
file GST returns for quarterly period, but he failed to do so
during the aforesaid period. Even though, he had already
discharged his tax liability towards output tax. The petitioner
though admits that an amount of Rs.2,15,384/- is
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
3
outstanding, but would urge that the cancellation of GST
registration was totally unwarranted and disproportionate to
the alleged violation, because a lesser penalty could
.
conveniently have been imposed.
6. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the appellate
order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P-4), wherein the appeal
filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.03.2024 has
been dismissed by respondent No.2, solely on the ground of
delay of 277 days that has crept-up in filing of the appeal.
7. According to the petitioner, he was not aware
about the passing of the impugned order of cancellation of
GST registration dated 19.03.2024 as his Accountant faced
health issues.
8. It is vehemently urged by Mr.Arvinder Arora,
learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned authorities
have not adopted a fair procedure, as provided under the GST
Act, while considering the application for delay by not
assigning any reasons or giving an opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner.
9. The respondents have not disputed the facts, but
would argue that since there was a delay of 277 days,
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
4
therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner has rightly been
rejected by the respondents.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
.
have also gone through the record carefully.
11. It is not in dispute that petitioner had filed an
appeal which has been rejected vide impugned order dated
08.04.2025, wherein, no reasons for rejection thereof have
been assigned. The only ground that has been given in the
GST APL-02 that has been uploaded on the website is
“reasons for rejection-delay in submission of appeal”, which
shows that while rejecting the appeal, the Appellate Authority
has not at all applied its mind and assigned reasons for
rejection of appeal.
12. 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.
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
5
13. 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.
14. The necessity of assigning reasons has been
repeatedly emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Masood Ahmed
Khan and Others (2010) 9 SSC 496, wherein after taking
into consideration the entire law on the subject, the position
of law was summarized as under:-
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such
decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in
support of its conclusions.
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
6
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve
the wider principle of justice that justice must not only
be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint
.
on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised
by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by
disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial
and even by administrative bodies.
(g)
Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour
of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is
virtually the life blood of judicial decision making
justifying the principle that reason is the soul of
justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can
be as different as the judges and authorities who
deliver. them. All these decisions serve one common
purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the
relevant factors have been objectively considered. This
is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the
justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision making process then it
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
7
is impossible to know whether the person deciding is
faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear
.
and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp
reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision
making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua
non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision making not only makes the
judges and decision makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See
David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987)
100 Harward Law Review 731-37).
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates
from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making,
the said requirement is now virtually a component of
human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg
Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v.Spain (1994) 19
EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of
Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human
Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore,
for development of law, requirement of giving reasons
for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part
of “Due Process”.
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
8
15. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector,
Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as under:-
.
“38. It is a settled proposition of law that even in
administrative matters, the reasons should be recordedas it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a
speaking and reasoned order.
39. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212
this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 243, para
36). “36……Every State action may be informed by
reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason,
is arbitrary. The rule of law contemplates governanceby laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the
men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time
being. It is the trite law that ‘be you ever so high, the
laws are above you’. This is what men in power mustremember, always.”
40. In LIC Vs. Consumer Education and Research
Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 this Court observed that the
State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant
or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitrary
in its decision. “Duty to act fairly” is part of fair
procedure envisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every
activity of the public authority or those under public
duty must be received and guided by the public interest.
A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in
Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836
and Mahesh Chandra Vs. U.P. Financial Corpn.(1993) 2
SCC 279.
41. In State of W.B. Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw 1991 Supp
(1) SCC 414, this Court observed that : (SCC p. 421,
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
9
para 7) “7….Giving of reasons is an essential element of
administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore,
an indispensable part of sound system of judicial
review.”
.
42. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India(1990) 4 SCC
594, it has been held that the object underlying the
rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of
justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding
horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for
requirement to record reasons as to it is now regarded
as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was
held in the above case that except in cases where the
requirement to record reasons is expressly or by
necessary implication dispensed with, the authority
must record reasons for its decision.
43. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC
605, this Court observed that the rule of law requires
that any action or decision of a statutory or public
authority must be founded on the reason stated in the
order or borne out from the record. The Court further
observed: (SCC p. 637, para 47). “47……Reasons are
the links between the material, the foundation for their
erection and the actual conclusions. They would also
demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated
and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis
with the facts considered and the conclusions reached.
Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating
Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21″.
44. This Court while deciding the issue in Sant Lal
Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society
Ltd.(2010) 13 SCC 336, placing reliance on its various
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
10
earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 345-46, para
27).
“27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only
administrative but also judicial orders must be.
supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for
its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part ofthe court to record reasons while disposing of the case.
The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by
a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasonsby itself and giving of reasons has always been
insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound
administration of the justice delivery system, to make itknown that there had been proper and due application
of mind to the issue before the court and also as an
essential requisite of the principles of natural justice.
‘3….The giving of reasons for a decision is an essentialattribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter
before courts, and which is the only indication to know
about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken,as also the fact that the court concerned had really
applied its mind’.
The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the
order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity
with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an
order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the
order is subject to further challenge before the higher
forum. 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::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )11
adversely affected must know why his application has
been rejected.”
45. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs.
L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537, this Court held that on
.
charge of misconduct the authority holding the inquiry
must record reasons for reaching its conclusion and
record clear findings. The Court further held: (SCC p.
558, para 30). “30…..In fairness and justice, the
member is entitled to know why he has been found
guilty. The case can be so serious that it can attract the
harsh penalties provided by the Act. Moreover, the
member has been given a right of appeal to the High
Court under Section 22-A of the Act. To exercise his right
of appeal effectively he must know the basis on which
the Council has found him guilty. We have already
pointed out that a finding by the Council is the first
determinative finding on the guilty of the member. It is a
finding by a Tribunal of first instance. The conclusion of
the Disciplinary Committee does not enjoy the status of
a ‘finding’. Moreover, the reasons contained in the
report by the Disciplinary Committee for its conclusion
may or may not constitute the basis of the finding
rendered by the Council. The Council must, therefore,
state the reasons for its finding.”
46. The emphasis on recording reason 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 their 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, reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind of the authority before
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
12
the court. Another rationale is that the affected party
can know why the decision has gone against him. One
of the salutary requirements of natural justice is
spelling out the reasons for the order made, in other
.
words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the
sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-
judicial performance.”
16. Earlier to the aforesaid decisions, a Constitution
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S. N. Mukherjee vs.
Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594, after an exhaustive
review of its earlier pronouncements as also the views
expressed in other jurisdictions and by expert committees,
summarized and explained the law as under:-
“The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate
that with regard to the requirement to record reasons
the approach of this Court is more in line with that of
the American Courts. An important consideration whichhas weighed with the Court for holding that an
administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial
functions must record the reasons for its decision, isthat such a decision is subject to the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of
the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution
and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this
Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the
appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole
consideration. The other considerations which have also
weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )13
requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee
consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in
the decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness
in decision making. In this regard a distinction has been.
drawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals
and authorities exercising judicial functions on the
ground that a Judge is trained to look at thingsobjectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or
expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks
at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency.
Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority
in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial
functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of itsjurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority.
But the other considerations, referred to above, which
have also weighed with this Court in holding that an
administrative authority must record reasons for itsdecision, are of no less significance. These
considerations show that the re- cording of reasons by
an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose,namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and
ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-
making. The said purpose would apply equally to alldecisions and its application cannot be confined to
decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or
judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the
requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the
decisions of an administrative authority exercising
quasi judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether
the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial
review. It may, however, be added that it is not required
that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )14
decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the
reasons would depend on particular facts and
circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons
are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority.
has given due consideration to the points in controversy.
The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case
where the order is passed at the original stage. Theappellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an
order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or
revisional authority agrees with the reasons containedin the order under challenge.
Having considered the rationale for the requirement to
record the reasons for the decision of an administrativeauthority exercising quasi-judicial functions we may
now examine the legal basis for imposing this
obligation. While considering this aspect the
Donoughmore Committee observed that it may well beargued that there is a third principle of natural justice,
namely, that a party is entitled to know the reason for
the decision, be it judicial or quasi-judicial. Thecommittee expressed the opinion that “there are some
cases where the refusal to give grounds for a decision
may be plainly unfair; and this may be so, even whenthe decision is final and no further proceedings are open
to the disappointed party by way of appeal or
otherwise” and that “where further proceedings are
open to a disappointed party, it is contrary to natural
justice that the silence of the Minister or the Ministerial
Tribunal should deprive them of the opportunity.” (P 80)
Prof. H.W.R. Wade has also expressed the view that
“natural justice may provide the best rubric for it, since
the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man’s::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )15
sense of justice.” (See Wade, Administrative Law, 6th
Edn. P. 548).”
17. Arbitrariness in making of an order by an
.
authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-
application 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.
18. 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.
19. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
as well as law laid down and in view of the aforesaid legal
::: Downloaded on – 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:20116 )
16
position, impugned order dated 08.04.2025 cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed
and set aside.
.
20. 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.
21. The parties to appear before the learned Authority
on 03.07.2025. The Appellate Authority is further directed to
decide the same as expeditiously as possible and in no event
later than 14th August, 2025.
22. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also
the pending application(s), if any.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
Judge
June 26, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja )
(naveen) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 27/06/2025 21:26:43 :::CIS