V R Construction Thr The Proprietor Vasant Ramu Kogekar vs. The Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And Ors

Held

The Court was satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner for their non-appearance before the appellate authority when the order dated 28th November 2025 was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Kolhapur. The Court found that the implication and effect of the Notification of Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2025, published on 1st January 2025, required consideration by the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court decided to interfere with the impugned order. The order dated 28th November 2025 was quashed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was restored to its original records and directed to be decided afresh by the appellate authority on its own merits, taking into account the Notification dated 1st January 2025. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. V.R. Construction, through its Proprietor Vasant Ramu Kogekar, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The petitioner challenged an order dated 28th November 2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Kolhapur. The petitioner contended that this order was passed in their absence. They provided an explanation for their non-appearance, referring to grounds of appeal at page 12 of their submission. The petitioner also cited Section 16 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017, and a Notification dated 1st January 2025 (Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2025), asserting entitlement to input tax credit for the relevant year.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in passing an order dated 28th November 2025 in the absence of the petitioner-assessee, and if so, whether the explanation provided for non-appearance is satisfactory? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). 2. Whether the Notification dated 1st January 2025, issued under Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2025, has implications for the petitioner's entitlement to input tax credit, and if so, whether this aspect was adequately considered by the appellate authority? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex-parte and provided a valid reason for their absence. They further contended that the Notification dated 1st January 2025, under Maharashtra Act No.VIII of 2025, entitles them to input tax credit, and this legal provision needed to be considered by the appellate authority. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and Ors., and the Respondent-State).