Page 73 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

2020 ] NUTAN ISPAT AND POWER PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH 287
far as the liability on the part of the Petitioner is concerned. Learned Additional
Advocate General further submits that from perusal of the impugned Order it
would reflect that on the date of hearing the Petitioner-Company did not mark
their presence in any manner either through their representative or the lawyer
through which they were represented, and as such the Petitioner cannot raise
these grounds at a later stage before this Court by way of a Writ Petition.
6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal
of the impugned Order, what clearly reflects is the fact that it is true that the Ap-
pellate Authority in the impugned Order has reproduced most of the grounds
that the Petitioner has raised in their Appeal. However, when we look into the
impugned Order, all what is reflected is that the Appellate Authority has literally
considered only the factual aspects of the case, that is, the date on which the Peti-
tioner was supposed to submit their return and the defaults on the part of the
Petitioner and the factual details in respect of the statutory provisions as is re-
quired. In addition, the order also reflects the date on which the demand notices
were issued to the Petitioner. However, none of these paragraphs have the Ap-
pellate Authority’s dealing with the specific objections and grounds that the Peti-
tioner has raised in their memo of Appeal.
7. It is by now a well settled position of law that the Appellate Authori-
ty while deciding the Appeal is duty bound to consider the grounds of challenge.
The Appellate Authority is also required to pass a reasoned and speaking order
considering and dealing with those grounds. The impugned Order in the instant
case, which is the order passed by the Appellate Authority, seems to be more of
an order passed by the Assessing Authority rather than an order passed by the
Appellate Authority. In the opinion of this Court, the Appeal has not been justi-
fiably decided and therefore the same deserves to be remitted back to the Appel-
late Authority for passing of a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the
grounds raised in the Appeal challenging the order passed by the Assessing Au-
thority on 20-8-2018.
8. In East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others
with K. Surekha v. Mahadeo Appa Rao and Others [(2010) 7 SCC 678], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in very categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in making of
an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order
passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind
by the persons 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. Ab-
sence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record con-
temporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary
hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is
difficult to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before pass-
ing of the order.
9. Accordingly and in view of above, the impugned Order dated 6-9-
2019 (Annexure P-1) is set aside/quashed and the matter stands remitted back to
Respondent No. 3-Appellate Authority for deciding the Appeal afresh specifical-
ly dealing with the grounds raised in the memo of Appeal by the Petitioner-
Company, which also finds place in the impugned Order.
10. Needless to mention that while deciding the Appeal afresh, the Re-
spondent No. 3 shall give an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner again.

GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  73