Patna High Court Sets Aside Cryptic Order That Lacked Any Cogent Reason
The Court said that the order by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes did not even contain the reasons necessarily required for making the order self-explainable
The High Court of Patna set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal) because it was cryptic and did not even contain the reasons necessarily required for making the order self-explainable and/or comprehensible.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Patna comprising of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar dealt with this matter titled Pankaj Sharma v Union of India And Ors.
It was the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent – Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), dismissed the appeal of the Petitioner only on the ground that he had not submitted the certified copy of the impugned order in time. The Petitioner also prayed for certain sections of the Central/Bihar Goods and Service Act, 2017 and its rules to be declared ultra vires, violative as well as not applicable in the case of the Petitioner but the Court chose to not go into the merits of such prayers.
The Respondent stated that he had no objection with the matter being remanded to the appellate authority for consideration of the Petitioner’s case on its merit in accordance with the law.
The bench noticed that the impugned order dated 28 January 2021 passed by the Respondent – the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), was cryptic in nature which needed to be set aside only on the ground that it did not even contain the reasons necessarily required for making the order self-explainable and/or comprehensible.
The Court observed that the Petitioner’s cause and case were seriously prejudiced as the Appellate Authority summarily dismissed the appeal without assigning any cogent reason.
It was also found that the Petitioner had already deposited 100 per cent of the amount which made the appeal mature to be heard on merits.
The Court, therefore, set aside the order of the Respondent – Additional Commissioner of State Taxes and remanded the matter back without expressing any opinion on the merits and issues of the case.