The Court held that a time-barred appeal — whether accompanied by a condonation application or otherwise — must be placed before the appellate authority for a reasoned quasi-judicial order after hearing the party.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of GST appeals of a pharmaceutical company, holding that an appeal cannot be rejected mechanically through the system-generated acknowledgment in Form GST APL-02 without a speaking and reasoned order [M/s Immacule Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. v. State of H.P. & Ors].
The Division Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel and Justice Yogesh Jaswal observed that once an appeal has been preferred under Section 107, it must mandatorily be placed before the appellate authority and an appropriate order must be passed after hearing the aggrieved party.
The appellate authority had rejected the appeals — which challenged refund rejection orders and a CBIC circular — through the APL-02 acknowledgment itself, which merely intimated rejection without assigning any reasons. In one case, the ground for rejection was not even mentioned.
The Court drew a clear distinction between the ministerial act of acknowledging receipt of an appeal and the quasi-judicial act of deciding it, holding that the intimation of rejection in the APL-02 was nothing more than a ministerial job and could not substitute for a quasi-judicial determination.
Relying upon the Supreme Court's ruling in Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, the Court held that the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness and is now virtually a component of human rights — an order without reasons is no order in the eyes of law.
The rejections in both petitions were quashed and the appellate authority was directed to restore the appeals, consider the condonation applications on the quasi-judicial side, and pass appropriate orders after hearing.
2026-juristway.com-2933-HC(Himachal Pradesh)-GST | High Court of Himachal Pradesh | CWP Nos. 3533 & 3551 of 2025 | 16.09.2026
