M/S Chaurasia Enterprises vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chaurasia Enterprises, is an assessee under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Patna. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 25.11.2021, on the grounds of non-prosecution. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority was statutorily obliged to decide the appeal on merits even in the absence of the appellant's counsel. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar. The High Court noted that the impugned order lacked any consideration on merits and failed to comply with Section 107 of the Act.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority failed to comply with the statutory mandate under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering it on merits. The Court found that the impugned appellate order lacked any consideration of the grounds of appeal or the Assessing Officer's reasoning, thus failing to provide a speaking order on merits. The Court noted that in exceptional circumstances, like an abuse of process, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution is permissible, even with an alternate remedy. It further observed that no efficacious alternate remedy was available as the GST Tribunal had not been constituted. The Court set aside the appellate order and directed the Appellate Authority to restore the appeal, hear it on merits, and pass a speaking order within two months from the last hearing, even if the appellant or their representative was absent. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority, under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is statutorily obliged to dispose of an appeal on merits even when the appellant fails to appear or prosecute the appeal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority committed a statutory error by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. They contended that the Appellate Authority was bound to decide the appeal on its merits, irrespective of the appellant's absence, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. S.Chenniappa Mudaliar. The petitioner also highlighted that the impugned appellate order did not consider the grounds of appeal or the grounds of the Assessing Officer, failing to provide any merit-based decision. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.