M/S. Honda INDIA Power Products LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

M/s. Honda India Power Products Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order that dismissed their appeal. The petitioner contended that the principles of natural justice were violated. Specifically, the impugned order stated that a personal hearing was conducted on October 16, 2023, but neither the appellant nor the respondents appeared. The petitioner is the appellant in the original appeal. The revenue, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that hearing dates are auto-populated on the portal and it was the appellant's responsibility to verify and appear.

Held

The Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was that hearing dates are auto-populated on the portal, and it was the responsibility of the appellant (petitioner) to verify these dates and appear before the appellate authority. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution. The ratio decidendi is that an assessee is responsible for monitoring the case status and hearing dates on the official portal, and failure to do so, leading to absence at a scheduled hearing, does not amount to a violation of natural justice. The Court made it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to make a further appeal before the GST Tribunal when it is constituted. The writ petition was closed with this reservation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority, on the ground that neither the appellant nor the respondents appeared for the personal hearing, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of the petitioner's contention that they were not properly notified or aware of the hearing date? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice because the appeal was dismissed despite a personal hearing being scheduled, and neither party appeared. They highlighted paragraph 4 of the impugned order to support this claim. Revenue's Argument: The learned Additional Solicitor General, on instructions, submitted that hearing dates are auto-populated on the portal. They contended that it was incumbent upon the appellant to verify the date from the portal and appear before the appellate authority when the matter was posted.