M/S Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mithilesh Kumar Singh, challenged an appellate order that dismissed their appeal for non-prosecution. The appeal was filed within the stipulated time. The appellate authority rejected the appeal solely due to the absence of the petitioner or their authorized representative during the hearing. The petitioner sought to set aside this order and have their appeal heard on merits. The respondents are the State of Bihar and various tax authorities.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority has a statutory duty and obligation under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act to look into the merits of the matter and examine the grounds raised by the appellant, even if the appellant or their authorized representative is absent. Dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution would amount to abdicating these powers. The Appellate Authority is empowered to conduct further inquiries as necessary to decide the appeal on its merits. The Court set aside the appellate order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and directed the restoration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is to appear on 17.05.2023, and the Appellate Authority shall fix a date for hearing, dispose of the appeal on merits within three months from the last hearing, and pass a speaking order even in the absence of the petitioner or their representative. The ratio is that statutory appellate authorities must decide appeals on merits, not dismiss them for procedural defaults like non-appearance, especially when empowered to conduct further inquiries.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority, under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits even in the absence of the appellant or their authorized representative, or if it can dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution? This issue turns on the interpretation of Section 107, sub-sections (8), (9), (10), (11), and (12) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority has a statutory duty to examine the merits of the appeal and the grounds raised, irrespective of the appellant's presence, citing the powers granted to the Appellate Authority to conduct further inquiries. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue or state respondents regarding this issue.