Authority must provide personal hearing and allow rectification after dismissing appeal and rectification request without hearing

HC held that the appellate authority violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal and rejecting the rectification application without affording any hearing on grounds of non-payment of pre-deposit, condonation of delay and absence of board resolution. The matter was remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals-II) to provide personal hearing, communicate the specific deficiencies, allow the appellant to rectify or explain them, and thereafter decide the appeal on merits by a speaking order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Appeal and Rectification Order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Lack of opportunity of hearing before dismissal of appeal; Procedural requirements for seeking substantial justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in banking business under the CGST Act, challenged the Order-in-Appeal and rectification order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-II). The petitioner faced technical glitches in filing the appeal due to non-uploading of the original order on the portal. Despite physical and electronic filing of the appeal, it was dismissed on grounds of non-payment of pre-deposit, lack of application for condonation of delay, and absence of board resolution authorizing the appeal. The petitioner's rectification application was also dismissed without a hearing, prompting the challenge before the court.

The High Court noted that the appellate authority failed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to address the grounds for dismissal, violating principles of natural justice. Citing a previous case, the court quashed the Order-in-Appeal and rectification order, emphasizing that procedural requirements should not hinder substantial justice. The court directed the respondent to grant the petitioner a personal hearing, specify deficiencies, allow rectification, and provide a chance to present arguments on merits for a speaking order.

The judgment concluded by keeping all rights and contentions open, clarifying that no observation was made on the merits of the case. The rule was disposed of without any cost order, ensuring that the petitioner receives a fair opportunity to present their case and rectify any procedural shortcomings.

---