2024 (11) TMI 37 - HC - GST

Rejection of condonation of delay - main order does not contain any reasons - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is well settled legal position that affidavit-in-reply cannot supplement the main order, which is under challenge by assigning the reasons when the main order does not contain any reasons. The Hon ble Apex Court in various decisions has emphasized the need for giving reasons by the Court or quasi-judicial or administrative authority so as to see that when such order is challenged before the higher Forum or before the Court, then the Court can consider such reasons and justification for passing such order - reliance can be placed in SANT LAL GUPTA VERSUS MODERN CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 2010 (10) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT . The impugned order, dated 12.06.2023 which is bereft of any reason is liable to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent to pass afresh order giving detailed reasons in support of the decision, which may be taken in accordance with law - petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 seeking writs of certiorari and mandamus to quash the order rejecting condonation of delay in export of goods beyond 90 days.

Analysis:
The petitioner applied for an extension to condone the delay in exporting goods beyond 90 days due to nonavailability of transportation services. The petitioner relied on Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST, emphasizing the zero-rated exports under the IGST Act. However, the respondent rejected the application without providing reasons for disallowing the extension beyond 90 days.

The respondent's rejection lacked reasoning, which is essential as per legal precedents emphasizing the need for authorities to provide detailed reasons for their decisions. The court cited cases like Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India to highlight the importance of recording reasons to ensure transparency and fairness in decision-making.

Given the absence of reasons in the respondent's order, the court quashed the decision and remanded the matter back to the respondent to pass a fresh order with detailed justifications. The court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all issues raised in the petition open for consideration in the revised order.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the directive for the respondent to provide a reasoned decision, adhering to legal principles requiring authorities to justify their actions. The court's decision underscores the significance of transparency and fairness in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings by mandating the provision of clear and explicit reasons for decisions.