Paonta Hp Centre vs. State Of Hp And Others

Held

The Court acknowledged that the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeals in default due to the absence of the petitioner's representative and was also correct in rejecting the recall application. However, as a matter of indulgence and in the interest of justice, considering the appeals had been pending for some time, the Court set aside both the order of dismissal in default and the order rejecting the recall application. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner depositing a cost of ₹50,000 with the respondents within four weeks. Upon deposit, the Appellate Authority was directed to restore the appeals to their original number, hear the parties, and decide them on merits. The Court stipulated that no more than two opportunities would be granted for arguments after restoration, and failure to proceed within these opportunities would allow the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Paonta H.P. Centre, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.06.2025, which dismissed their appeals (Nos. 152-155 of 2018-19 and 47-52 of 2019-20) in default. This dismissal occurred because no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner State Taxes and Excise. Subsequently, the petitioner's application to recall this dismissal order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority via an order dated 03.09.2026. The petitioner then approached the High Court seeking to quash these orders and to restore their appeals for a decision on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should quash and set aside the order dated 30.06.2025 dismissing the petitioner's appeals in default, and the subsequent order dated 03.09.2026 rejecting the application for recall of the dismissal order? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and have their appeals restored for a decision on merits. The judgment does not explicitly record the petitioner's arguments for why the dismissal in default or the rejection of the recall application was erroneous, beyond seeking restoration. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, did not present any specific arguments challenging the petitioner's plea in the judgment. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority had no option but to dismiss the appeal in default as no one appeared for the appellant.