M/S.Intwel Technologies LTD. vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Intwel Technologies Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore (1st respondent), which in turn upheld an order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST Commissionerate, Madurai-I Division (2nd respondent). The petitioner had filed an appeal against the original order after making the pre-deposit. The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates, but the petitioner requested adjournments due to personal inconvenience. The appellate authority, citing Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, which limits adjournments to three, dismissed the appeal on merits after the petitioner failed to argue the case despite four opportunities. The petitioner contended that granting one more opportunity would allow them to present their arguments and documents effectively.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner deserved an opportunity to present their case. The Court noted that the appellate authority was constrained from granting further adjournment solely due to the rule prohibiting more than three adjournments under Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that they had made the pre-deposit and filed the appeal, and that a further opportunity would allow them to effectively argue their case. Therefore, the impugned order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the file of the first respondent for a fresh consideration from the stage of personal hearing. The Court directed the petitioner to appear on a specified date or any other date intimated by the respondent and argue the matter without fail, making it clear that no further opportunity would be granted. The petitioner was also permitted to produce additional documents. The ratio decidendi is that procedural technicalities, such as strict adherence to adjournment limits, should not prejudice a party's right to a fair hearing, especially when the pre-deposit has been made and the substantive appeal is yet to be effectively argued.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal on merits without granting a further opportunity for hearing, despite the petitioner having made the pre-deposit and filed the appeal, considering the circumstances leading to the non-appearance for arguments? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of principles of natural justice and the application of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they had made the pre-deposit and filed the appeal, and due to personal inconvenience, they sought an adjournment. They contended that if granted another opportunity, they could effectively present their arguments and supporting documents to the appellate authority. They sought to quash the impugned order and obtain a fresh hearing. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner was granted repeated opportunities by the appellate authority, and it was incumbent upon the petitioner to utilize them. They supported the appellate authority's decision to proceed with the appeal on merits.