1. Executive Summary

GST appeals are a critical safeguard for taxpayers, especially when faced with adverse orders like registration cancellation. But what happens if you miss your hearing? Can the appellate authority simply rubber-stamp the lower order without addressing your written arguments? The Calcutta High Court has made it clear: even if an appeal is heard ex-parte (without the appellant’s presence), the appellate authority must pass a “speaking order”—one that addresses the grounds raised in writing and explains the reasoning. Mere mechanical affirmations are not just unfair—they’re legally invalid.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers, CFOs, and Practitioners

• Written Grounds Matter: Your arguments in Form GST APL-01 must be considered by the appellate authority, even if you’re absent at the hearing.
• No Rubber-Stamping: An ex-parte order must still be a “speaking order”—it cannot simply echo the lower authority’s decision without independent reasoning.
• Natural Justice Prevails: The appellate authority’s duty to apply its mind and address all grounds is a matter of legal obligation, not mere formality.
• Practical Safeguards: Well-drafted grounds of appeal and prompt challenges to non-speaking orders are your best defence against adverse GST consequences.

2. Introduction

Reasoned orders are the backbone of fair adjudication in GST appeals. When an appellate authority passes a “speaking order,” it not only upholds the law but also reinforces the taxpayer’s right to be heard—even if that hearing happens only on paper. Unfortunately, a growing trend of non-speaking, ex-parte affirmations threatens this principle. Many taxpayers find their appeals dismissed with a single line, without any discussion of the grounds they painstakingly set out in their appeal memo.

This article aims to clarify the legal obligation of appellate authorities to pass reasoned orders under Section 107 of the GST Act, even when the appellant is absent. By understanding the distinction between an ex-parte hearing (where the case is decided on merits based on the record) and a dismissal for default (where the appeal is thrown out for non-appearance), you can better safeguard your rights and ensure your appeal is properly adjudicated.

For tailored assistance, you may consult Chartered Accountants in Chandigarh who specialize in GST litigation and advisory.

3. Case Law in Focus

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Shatrughan Shaw v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (2025) is a timely reminder that appellate authorities under GST cannot abdicate their quasi-judicial responsibilities, even when the appellant is absent. Let’s break down the case and its wider implications for GST appeals.

3.1 Factual Matrix

The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, had voluntarily applied for cancellation of his GST registration after ceasing business. Instead of accepting this, the department issued a cryptic, one-line show cause notice proposing retrospective cancellation and then passed a cancellation order. The taxpayer challenged this by filing an appeal under Section 107, raising specific grounds—most notably, the vagueness of the SCN and breach of natural justice.

However, the petitioner failed to appear for the scheduled appellate hearing. The appellate authority, proceeding ex-parte, simply affirmed the original cancellation order. Crucially, the appellate order did not discuss or even reference the written grounds of appeal. It was, in effect, a “rubber-stamp” of the lower authority’s decision.

3.2 The Issue: Is an Ex-Parte, Non-Speaking Affirmation Valid?

The central question before the High Court was whether the appellate authority could lawfully dispose of an appeal by a non-speaking order—one that neither addresses the written grounds nor provides any independent reasoning—merely because the appellant was absent.

3.3 Judicial Analysis & Decision Highlights

The High Court’s analysis was clear and unequivocal:

• Duty to Apply Mind: The appellate authority, as a quasi-judicial body, is bound to consider the grounds of appeal on record, even if the appellant does not appear in person. The written submissions are not to be ignored.
• Obligation to Pass a Speaking Order: The law requires a “speaking order”—one that sets out the authority’s reasoning, deals with each ground raised, and demonstrates application of mind. This is not a technicality but a core aspect of natural justice.
• Invalidity of Rubber-Stamp Orders: Simply echoing the lower authority’s order, without independent analysis or reference to the appellant’s arguments, is not just improper—it renders the appellate order legally unsustainable.

3.4 Impact: Matter Set Aside and Remanded

Recognising these failures, the High Court set aside the appellate order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits, after properly considering the written grounds—even if the appellant remains absent.

This ruling is not an isolated one. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Ed and F Man Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACST, whi