Appeal on merits required after hearing is fixed; dismissal for default is not a lawful disposal.

An appellate authority under the Bihar Sales Tax Act, once it has fixed an admitted appeal for hearing, must determine the controversy on merits by confirming, reducing, enhancing or annulling the assessment or penalty. A dismissal for default at that stage is not a lawful disposal of the appeal, because the statutory scheme distinguishes summary rejection from adjudication after admission. The same construction was supported by the analogous income-tax provision, under which determination in appeal means decision on the points raised, not mere rejection for non-appearance. Accordingly, dismissal without considering the memorandum of appeal was ultra vires and not in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal under the Bihar Sales Tax Act could be dismissed for default without a decision on the merits after the appellate authority had fixed the matter for hearing.

Analysis: The appellate provision required the authority, in disposing of an appeal, to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment or penalty, which imported a determination of the controversy raised. The summary rejection rule was distinct from the rule governing hearing after the appeal had been admitted for consideration. Once the Commissioner fixed the matter for hearing rather than summarily rejecting it, the appeal had to be decided on merits. A dismissal for default in such circumstances did not amount to a lawful determination of the appeal. The analogous income-tax provision supported the same construction, since determination in appeal means a decision on the point raised and not a bare dismissal for non-appearance.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal for default without adjudicating the grounds in the memorandum of appeal was not in accordance with law and was ultra vires.

---