In a significant decision reinforcing the importance of reasoned adjudication, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recently set aside an order passed by the appellate authority rejecting an appeal on grounds of delay without offering proper reasoning for denial of condonation. The Court emphasized that authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions are duty-bound to provide detailed and cogent reasoning, particularly when dismissing a party’s substantive right to appeal.
Case Title:
M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand v. Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise
Citation: [2025] HPHC (7 July 2025)
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Satyen Vaidya
Factual Background:
The petitioner, M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand, filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (HPGST Act), before the Appellate Authority challenging an order passed by the adjudicating authority. However, the appeal was filed beyond the statutorily permitted period of three months and the further one-month condonable period allowed under the Act.
Alongside the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application seeking condonation of delay citing valid reasons such as procedural confusion and lack of proper legal advice. Despite this, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation and refused to condone the delay, without assigning any proper justification for the refusal.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Key Legal Issues:
- Whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay without assigning reasons?
- Whether non-speaking orders passed in exercise of quasi-judicial functions are sustainable in law?
Observations of the Court:
Justice Satyen Vaidya held that although the appellate authority has a limited power to condone delay—restricted to a maximum of one month beyond the initial three-month limitation period as per Section 107(4) of the HPGST Act—it is still required to exercise that discretion judiciously and provide reasons while rejecting any condonation application.
The Court emphasized:
“The exercise of discretion must be informed, reasoned, and not mechanical. Even if the authority comes to the conclusion that the appeal is barred by time, the order rejecting it must disclose why the reasons advanced for delay were not found sufficient.”
It was observed that the appellate authority’s order lacked any reference to the facts stated by the petitioner or a discussion on why the grounds for condonation were considered inadequate. The order was completely silent on the merits of the condonation request, reflecting non-application of mind.
The Court also reiterated the settled principle that a non-speaking order in a quasi-judicial setting amounts to violation of natural justice and cannot be sustained.
Judgment:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and directed it to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal along with the delay condonation application afresh. The Court mandated that the authority must assign reasons, reflecting application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Legal Significance:
This judgment underscores the duty of tax authorities and quasi-judicial officers to act in a fair, transparent, and reasoned manner. The decision is particularly important in the context of GST litigation where procedural lapses often occur due to frequent changes in law, lack of adequate legal support for small businesses, and technical barriers in filing.
The ruling also affirms the principle that procedural discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and must be backed by judicial discipline and reasoning.
Key Takeaways:
- Condonation of delay must be dealt with judiciously: Authorities must provide cogent reasons for rejecting such applications, especially when they result in dismissal of substantive rights.
- Non-speaking orders are not sustainable: Every quasi-judicial order must reflect application of mind and reasoning.
-
Natural justice remains paramount: Even in procedural matters, fairness and transparency cannot be compromised.