M/S Gobind Ram And Sons Barabanki Thru. Partner Mohit Agrawal vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration, Lucknow And Others
Held
The Court held that the appellate authority was indeed mandated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It found that there is no provision in law to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution. Following the precedent set in the case of M/s Rajdhani Arms Corporation, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 20.01.2024. The appellate authority is directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 06.11.2024 at 12:00 Noon. If the petitioner fails to appear, the appellate authority may decide the appeal on merits. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Gobind Ram And Sons Barabanki, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.01.2024. This order dismissed their appeal without a hearing. The dismissal occurred because the required documents were not filed and the appellant was absent before the appellate authority. The petitioner contends that the appellate authority failed to provide an opportunity of hearing, which is mandated by law. This issue has been previously addressed by the High Court in another judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appellate authority was obligated to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before dismissing the appeal, as per Section 107(8) of the CGST Act? The petitioner argued that Section 107(8) of the CGST Act mandates an opportunity of hearing for the appellant. They relied on the High Court's judgment in Trade Tax Revision No. 31 of 2023 (M/s Rajdhani Arms Corporation Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax) which dealt with a similar issue. The respondent, State of U.P., did not present any arguments on this point.
Sections Cited
Section 107(8)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70232 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 221 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Gobind Ram And Sons Barabanki Thru. Partner Mohit Agrawal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shivendra S Singh Rathore,Abhishek Upadhyay,Bhavesh Chandel,Radhika Kheria,Rishabh Chauhan,Sachin Upadhyay,Utkarsh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.01.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed without hearing.
A perusal of the said order indicates that the appeal was dismissed as the document which were required to be filed were not filed and the appellant was not even present before the appellate authority.
The neat contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the mandate of section 107(8)(9) of CGST Act, it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to give an opportunity of hearing. He argues that this issue was also dealt with before this Court in the judgment dated 15.07.2024 Trad
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.