the essay of 11 February 2026 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">FEBRUARY 11, 2026</font></strong></font></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#FF6633" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong> Order Refusing to Speak</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u>By Vijay Kumar</u></font></font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RAMNAYAN</strong> Yadav of Azamgarh received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 05.08.2024 from the Assistant Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Division, Azamgarh as to why the following amounts should not be demanded and recovered: </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a) Short payment of GST - Rs. 47,01,682/- </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) Excess availment of Input Tax Credit - Rs.27,56,828/- </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(c) Wrong availment of Input Tax Credit - Rs.31,34,336/- </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Penalty and interest were also proposed. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The taxpayer disputed the demand and furnished his reply on 19.08.2025. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By his order dated 18.12.2025, the learned Assistant Commissioner sustained the demand. In his 'Discussion And Findings', he solemnly stated: </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I find that the submission of the noticee is not appropriate in respect of the impugned show cause notice. Further the noticee also failed to furnish all the supporting documents in respect of its reply dated 19.08.2025. Therefore, in my opinion the demand raised in the impugned show cause notice is sustainable. </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The taxpayer is in writ petition before the Allahabad High Court against the order of the Assistant Commissioner. - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/caselaw/todays_case_indirect_tax/details?id=191544&type=caselaw" target="_blank"><strong>2026-TIOL-272-HC-ALL-GST</strong></a></font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">According to the taxpayer no opportunity of hearing was given. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court, on perusal of the impugned order found that after taking note of the contents of the show-cause notice, reminders were sent to the noticee fixing date 17.12.2024, 23.12.2024 and 06.01.2025 for personal hearing. It has been observed that the last date for personal hearing fixed was 06.01.2025 and thereafter it has been observed that the written reply was furnished by the petitioner on 19.08.2025. What transpired between 06.01.2025 and 19.08.2025 is not clear. Materially, there is no narration in the impugned order that any notice for personal hearing was issued to the petitioner for any date beyond 19.08.2025, when it had first filed its reply to the show-cause notice. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Court held: </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">From the narration contained in the impugned order, it is not clear if any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner after 19.08.2025. To that extent, <font color="#ff0000">violation of principles of natural justice is made out</font>.</font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Court further observed, </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">More materially, if not shockingly after writing more than 30 pages of the order which contain nothing more than extract of the show-cause notice and the extract of the written reply dated 19.08.2025, under the heading 'Discussion And Findings', only this much has been observed</font></font></p><blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Discussion And Findings:- I have carefully gone through the records of the case, details and facts mentioned in the impugned show cause notice, noticee's submission in response to the notice and all other facts available on records. I find that the submission of the noticee is not appropriate in respect of the impugned show cause notice. Further the noticee also failed to furnish all the supporting documents in respect of its reply dated 19.08.2025. Therefore, in my opinion the demand raised in the impugned show cause notice is sustainable. </font></font></p></blockquote></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thirty pages of extracts, one paragraph of "findings." A speaking order that refused to speak. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Court noted: </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Sri Braj Kishore Vidyarthi, Assistant Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Division-Azamgarh has failed to apply his mind to any part of the reply furnished by the petitioner. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. He further appears to have failed to apply his mind to the demand proposed against the petitioner. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. He has first recorded the contents of the show-cause notice and thereafter extracted the reply. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Without assigning any reason, he has confirmed the demand of tax and penalty. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. The lack of application of mind is apparent on the face of record and requires no discussion by this Court. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. By making wholly vague and generic observations that he had considered all material available on record or that submission of the noticee is not 'appropriate' or that the noticee has failed to furnish 'all supporting document in respect of its reply dated 19.08.2025', there is no consideration offered to the reply and there is no reasoning given to the fact contentions raised by the petitioner. </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. If the reply to the show-cause notice was lacking in any part, for which reason the explanation furnished by the petitioner was to be rejected it was incumbent on the adjudicating authority to discuss the same and record his reasons to draw that conclusion.</font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 of the Assistant Commissioner and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Prima facie, if the adjudicating authority is not convinced with the explanation furnished, it is expected that the petitioner would be given opportunity to explain the doubts that may exist with the adjudicating authority and cogent reasons would be recorded to reject the fact explanation furnished by the petitioner. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court directed that a copy of this order be communicated to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs for necessary compliance to ensure all Adjudicating Authorities, comply with the minimal requirements of law with respect to grant of adequate opportunity to file reply, opportunity of personal hearing and, recording of reasons, to prevent frivolous litigation and frivolous demands being raised. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">More than thirty years ago, the AP High Court in <em>Sivashankar Granites Pvt. Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise (1995)</em> remarked, </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">it is high time that the Central Excise authorities wake up to the requirements of fair play as laid down by innumerable decisions of the Apex Court and observe the principles of natural justice in taking actions resulting in civil consequences, eschewing arbitrariness that is anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution. </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The principles of natural justice are simple: </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. No man shall be a judge in his own case </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Hear the other side </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Give reasons for the decision. </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That last principle is why speaking orders exist. An order must tell its own story-facts, findings, reasons-so that appellate forums are not left in the dark. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Instead, we get dumb orders: SCN repeated, reply reproduced, demand confirmed. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In simple terms a speaking order is an order that speaks for itself. The order should stand the test of legality, fairness and reason at all the higher appellate forums. That is the order should contain all the details of the issue, clear findings and a reasoned order. Such an order that speaks for itself is called a speaking order. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the courts have no hesitation in striking down an order, if it is not a speaking order. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Speaking Orders as a concept was not given much importance in India, in the early years of our independence, when the officialdom was not often questioned. (Perhaps then their actions were not much questionable also). </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why do well-experienced and highly paid adjudication officers fail in their basic responsibility? </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A survey was conducted among mid-level officers in CBIC on the reasons for poor quality of adjudication. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some of the answers: - </font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Indifference in following the principles of natural justice; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Bureaucratic highhandedness; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) Lack of professionalism and competence; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) Lack of interest in adjudication; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(v) Tendency to dispose the case in favour of Revenue to save time and effort; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(vi) Frequent changes in the law and procedure and lack of knowledge. This is aggravated by frequent transfers; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(vii) Insufficient support staff; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(viii) Mask of vigilance fear is used to cover the above lacuna and shortcomings; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ix) Pressure to liquidate pendency; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(x) Too much emphasis on quantity in disposal rather than on qualitative effort; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xi) Culture in the Department not to invite trouble; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xii) Premium attached to the pro Revenue image in the Department in assessing competence and suitability of officer for various assignments; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xiii) Adjudication is not considered as the core function of duty; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xiv) Vigilance proceedings are time consuming and better avoid them; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xv) Wrath of reviewing officers who are also administrative bosses, who otherwise are supposed to encourage fair and judicious adjudication; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xvi) Acceptance of orders is dragged and explanations are called from the adjudicators; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xvii) Vigilance fear works on the adjudicator on account of the investigating agencies like DRI; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xviii) One officer narrated how even refund claims were threatened with vigilance action if cleared positively; </font></font></p><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(xix) Adjudicators do not care to do the original work but simply sign the drafts prepared by the supporting staff. </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CESTAT former President Justice Raghuram once said,</font></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is compulsive evidence of a deep pathology in departmental adjudication. Two interpretations are possible - one that the judges are not able to understand the law as well as the commissioners are able to - one interpretation, which is comfortable for the departmental family……..If the pro-family interpretation is to be assumed as hallucinatory, then we are left with the inescapable conclusion that something is pathologically, terminally and seriously wrong with our departmental adjudication. </font></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The pathology persists: dumb orders, deaf hearings, blind confirmations.</font></font></p> <p align="justify"><img src="https://admin.taxindiaonline.com/UploadedFiles/Customs/CaseLaws/2026/Jest.PNG" style="height:256px; width:460px"/></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A taxpayer wrote to us:</font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0066cc"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Speaking order</font></font></font><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> is a rare commodity these days. Most of the orders are dumb and the submissions during the personal hearing fall on deaf ears. Finally, the show cause notices are confirmed blindly resulting in senseless orders. The first few pages of the adjudication order, you find the show cause notice repeated, the next few pages contain the submissions in reply filed and finally the order confirming the allegations without any discussion of the points raised in reply. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is exactly what our Assistant Commissioner did - why blame him? </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until next week </font></font></font></p> <div align="justify"><font size="2"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Comments/feedback welcome at <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@tiol.in">vijaywrite@tiol.in </a> or 9848111243 (WhatsApp)</font></font></div> </body> </html>