Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited Through Its Director Pawan Garg vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that while Section 113 of the CGST Act pertains to the decision on merits, Section 111(1) and (2) of the Act are relevant for the procedure before the Appellate Tribunal. Specifically, Section 111(2)(f) empowers the Appellate Tribunal to dismiss a representation (interpreted to include an appeal) for default. The Court noted that the petitioner could have availed the remedy under Section 111(2)(g) to set aside an ex-parte dismissal. However, considering the factual aspect that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution despite a substantial pre-deposit and the petitioner's claim of not being properly informed, the Court found that the petitioner deserved an order on merits in their first appeal. The Court also advised the Department to introduce simpler methods of notice service, such as SMS/email, to avoid future litigation on technical grounds. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 30.09.2026.

Facts

The petitioner, Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appellate Authority), Indore Division-I. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal for want of prosecution. The petitioner had filed the appeal on 17.10.2022 against an order dated 07.09.2022 by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, which raised a demand of Rs.81,46,488/-. The appeal was filed with a pre-deposit of Rs.6,04,788/-. The petitioner contended that they were not properly informed of the hearing dates, as notices were uploaded on the GST portal under the ‘Additional notices/Orders’ tab, and they believed a formal communication would be sent. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, citing three prior notices for hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has the power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution, specifically in light of Section 113 of the Act. (Question of law) 2. Whether notices uploaded on the GST portal under the ‘Additional notices/Orders’ tab constitute proper service of notice for hearing an appeal, especially when the appellant claims no knowledge of such notices. (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: - The appeal should not have been dismissed for want of prosecution, as Section 113 of the CGST Act mandates that appeals be decided on merits. - Notices uploaded on the GST portal tabs do not constitute proper service of notice, and reliance was placed on various High Court decisions supporting this contention. Revenue's Arguments: - The respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.