M/S Nanda Devi (A Sole Proprietor Ship Firm) vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the ex-parte order passed by the Appellate Authority on 28.02.2024 was not sustainable in the interest of justice. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they were unable to appear before the Appellate Authority on six occasions due to unavoidable circumstances, thereby being denied a proper hearing. The Court acknowledged that while the order was on merits, it was passed ex-parte. Therefore, to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, the Court decided to set aside the Appellate Order and restore the appeal to its original file. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte order, even if substantively correct, should be reconsidered if a party demonstrates a genuine inability to appear and present their case, upholding the principles of natural justice. The operative direction was to give the petitioner one opportunity to appear before the Appellate Authority, who would then pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner within two months from the date of appearance. The issue of the merits of the original appeal was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nanda Devi, a proprietorship firm and work contractor, filed a writ application challenging an ex-parte order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, dated 28.02.2024. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the Appellate Authority on six occasions, leading to the dismissal of their appeal ex-parte. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to present their case during the appeal's disposal. The amount in dispute and specific tax periods are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition after their appeal was dismissed ex-parte.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Appellate Authority is sustainable in the interest of justice, considering the petitioner's inability to appear on multiple occasions? (Mixed question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the ex-parte order was passed due to unavoidable circumstances preventing their appearance on six occasions. They contended that they were denied an opportunity to present their case on merits, and in the interest of justice, they should be given another chance to be heard by the Appellate Authority. They relied on the principle of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondents (Union of India, Chief Commissioner CGST and CX, State of Bihar, Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, and Additional Commissioner (Appeal)).