Statutory appeal against impugned order: can it be dismissed for non-appearance? Dismissal set aside; appeal restored for merits hearing.

The dominant issue was whether the Appellate Authority could dismiss a statutory appeal for non-prosecution due to the appellant's non-appearance. The HC held that the statute obliges the authority to decide the appeal on merits by considering the grounds raised and, if necessary, making further enquiry before confirming, modifying, or annulling the impugned order; a dismissal solely for absence amounts to abdication of statutory duty. Given the non-constitution of the Tribunal and lack of an efficacious alternate remedy, the appellate order was set aside without examining merits, and the appeal was directed to be restored for fresh adjudication, with the appellant required to appear on the specified date.

---

---

Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged the appellate order under Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing non-prosecution as the reason for dismissal by the Appellate Authority. The key issue was whether the Appellate Authority was obligated to dispose of the appeal on merits despite the non-appearance of the appellant.

Comprehensive details for each issue:

1. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, contrary to the statutory obligation to decide on merits, as highlighted in the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai. The Government Pleader argued that the grounds raised by the appellant were considered by the Assessing Officer and reiterated by the Appellate Authority, which also noted the consistent non-appearance of the appellant. The absence of provision for the GST Tribunal at the time led the Court to grant liberty for approaching the Tribunal in the future, with a stay on recovery proceedings upon deposit of 20% of the disputed tax amount.

2. The Court examined the statutory provisions under the BGST Act, emphasizing the necessity for the Appellate Authority to conduct further inquiry, hear the appellant, and pass orders confirming, modifying, or annulling the appealed decision. The order must be in writing, stating the points for determination, decision, and reasons. Failure to adhere to this process would indicate an abdication of powers by the Tribunal.

3. Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Court found a lack of consideration on merits and non-compliance with Section 107 requirements. Citing the precedent that Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked in exceptional circumstances, especially in cases of a clear abuse of process, the Court set aside the appellate order. With no alternative remedy available due to the absence of the Tribunal, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to restore the appeal, ensure a hearing, and dispose of the appeal on merits within two months from the last hearing, emphasizing the need for a speaking order even in the absence of the appellant or their representative.

4. The judgment concluded by allowing the writ petition with the specified directions, emphasizing the importance of due process and adherence to statutory mandates in the disposal of appeals under the BGST Act.

---