SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 192

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, MADHURESH PRASAD
Purushottam Stores – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP 7.

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The petitioner, an assessee, under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, challenged the appellate order dated 15.02.2023 passed by the 3rd Respondent under Section 74 of the Act. The short ground, on which the challenge is raised, is that the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal for reason of non-prosecution of the same when even in the context of non-appearance of the appellant, the Appellate Authority was statutorily obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai; (1969)1 SCC 591.

2. The learned Government Pleader, in support of the order, points out the grounds raised by the appellant having been dealt with by the Assessing Officer and reiterated by the Appellate Authority, in its order produced as Annexure-9. It is also pointed out that the appellant had consistently not appeared before the Appellate Authority in which circumstance, the said fact was also noticed by the Appellate Authority, which was an additional reason cited by the Appellate Authority to reject the appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top