‘Inscrutable Face of the Sphinx’ Cannot Guide Justice: Jharkhand HC Quashes GST Appellate Order, Stresses Duty to Give Reasons [Read Order]
The Bench explained that reasons form the live link between the decision-maker's mind and the conclusion reached, replacing subjectivity with objectivity.
![‘Inscrutable Face of the Sphinx’ Cannot Guide Justice: Jharkhand HC Quashes GST Appellate Order, Stresses Duty to Give Reasons [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/08/07/2073868-jharkhand-hc-gst-appeal-taxscan.webp "‘Inscrutable Face of the Sphinx’ Cannot Guide Justice: Jharkhand HC Quashes GST Appellate Order, Stresses Duty to Give Reasons [Read Order]")
“Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them” ruled the Jharkhand High Court. While invalidating the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appellate order, it said that orders passed without giving reasons are unsustainable. The Division Bench of Chief Justice...
“Arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Non-application of mind by the authority making the order is only one of them” ruled the Jharkhand High Court. While invalidating the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) appellate order, it said that orders passed without giving reasons are unsustainable.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad emphatically held that every judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative order must disclose the rationale behind the decision.
Step by Step Guide of Preparing Company Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account Click Here
The petition was filed by Sidh Hanuman Enterprises, challenging the GST appellate authority’s order. In the instant case, the appellate authority had merely confirmed the adjudication order without assigning any reasons, simply citing the petitioner’s absence as a justification.
According to the Court, decisions that show "the inscrutable face of the sphinx" weaken proper scrutiny by the courts, making this approach constitutionally ineffective.
The Court noted that the duty to provide reasons is not a mere formality, but a fundamental tenet of fairness and transparency, as observed by the Supreme Court in several cases including Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India.
Practical Case Studies in Forensic Accounting & Corporate Fraud Investigation - Clcik Here
The Bench explained that reasons form the live link between the decision-maker's mind and the conclusion reached, replacing subjectivity with objectivity. It was also found that the absence of reasoning in the impugned appellate order especially in a matter involving serious fiscal implications under Section 74 of the JGST Act amounted to arbitrariness and violated the taxpayer’s right to a fair hearing.
As such, it set aside the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority with directions to pass a fresh, reasoned, and speaking order after granting the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. The parties were directed to appear before the authority on 11.08.2025, and the matter is to be disposed of by 31st December 2025.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates