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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mithilesh Kumar Singh, challenged an appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), Magadh Division, Gaya, Bihar. This order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner or their authorized representative. The appeal had been filed within the stipulated time. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the merits of the case, despite the statutory provisions empowering it to do so. The revenue did not present any arguments in response.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority has a duty and an 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 an appeal for non-prosecution would amount to the Appellate Authority abdicating its statutory powers, especially considering its empowerment to conduct further inquiries. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities must decide appeals on merits as per statutory mandate, not dismiss them for procedural absence. The Court set aside the appellate order and directed the restoration of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is to appear on 17.05.2023, and the Appellate Authority is to fix a hearing date. The appeal is to be disposed of on merits within three months from the last hearing date. The Court further directed that even in the absence of the appellant or their representative on the hearing date, the Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal on merits and pass a speaking order.

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 can it 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 contention: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority has a statutory duty to examine the grounds of appeal and decide the matter on merits, irrespective of the appellant's presence. They relied on the aforementioned provisions of the Act. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue.