M/s Rangoli Hardware Mach Marts Jamui vs The Union of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 11146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3907 of 2023 ======================================================
M/s Rangoli Hardware Mach Marts Jamui, through its Proprietor Rajendra Kumar Bhagat @ Rajendra Kumar, aged about 54 years, Gender Male, son of Yogendra Prasad Bhagat, Resident of Jamui, Maharajganj, P.S. Jamui Town, District Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.
3. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
5. The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Jamui Circle, District Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s ======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, S.C. 11 For the Union of India : Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG Mr. Anshuman Singh, Sr. SC, CGST & CX ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 02-05-2023 The petitioner challenges the appellate order which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The appeal was filed in time and the appellate authority merely for the reason of the absence of the petitioner or the authorised representative rejected the appeal.

2. We have already held in Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors; CWJC No. 4349 of 2023 decided on 25.04.2023; looking at the provisions of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act especially sub-sections (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) of Section 107 of the Act, that the Appellate Authority has a duty and an obligation under the statute to look into the merits of the matter and also examine the grounds raised by the appellant, even if there is no presence recorded of the appellant before the Appellate Authority and decide the issue on merits. The Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution would be abdicating its powers especially looking at the provisions where the Appellate Authority has been empowered to conduct such further enquiry as found necessary to decide the appeal, which decision also shall be on the points raised.

3. We, hence, set aside the order dated

30.01.2023, produced at Page-21 (Annexure-2) and direct the restoration of appeal before the Appellate Authority.

4. The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 18.05.2023. The Appellate Authority or its office shall fix a date of hearing on the said date, with due acknowledgment taken from the appellant; if the date of hearing is issued from the office, proceed with the hearing on the date fixed and dispose of the appeal on merits within three months from the date of last hearing. We also direct the petitioner to cooperate in the hearing of the appeal and even if there is absence of the appellant or his authorized representative on the date of hearing, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal on merits and pass a speaking order.

5. The writ petition stands allowed with the above direction.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

P.K.P./Anushka AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 03.05.2023 Transmission Date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document