Tax appeal notice scheduling that fixed reply and hearing same day, causing delay dismissal; appeals restored with deposit condition.

The dominant issue was whether dismissal of the statutory appeals solely on limitation, in circumstances where the notice process fixed the reply date and personal hearing on the same day (or with only a one-day gap), violated principles of natural justice. The HC held that such scheduling denied a meaningful opportunity of hearing, and that, despite the appellate authority's likely lack of power to condone delay, justice required interference in the peculiar facts. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dismissing the appeals on delay was set aside and the appeals were restored subject to deposit of a specified sum within ten days; the demand order was made subject to the appeals' outcome.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether, in the peculiar facts where multiple notices fixed the same date for filing reply and personal hearing (and the last reminder gave only a one-day gap), the assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of hearing warranting interference to secure "ends of justice".

(ii) Whether, despite the statutory position that the appellate authority could not condone delay beyond the prescribed limit, the Court should set aside dismissal orders passed merely on the ground of delay and restore the appeals on conditions, so that the dispute is decided on merits.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Adequacy of opportunity of hearing in the adjudication process

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court noted that notices were issued under Section 73 of the applicable State GST law, and examined the scheduling of "date of submission of reply" vis-à-vis "date of personal hearing".

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated it as undisputed that the initial show cause notice and two reminders fixed the same date for reply and hearing. Although the final reminder provided a gap of one day, the Court considered the overall circumstances, including the substantial rights involved and the effect of the appellate dismissal, and concluded that the scheduling materially impacted the opportunity to submit a substantial reply and be heard effectively.

Conclusion: In the interest of justice, the Court found it appropriate to grant relief by facilitating adjudication at the appellate stage after restoring the appeals, rather than allowing the matter to stand concluded without an effective hearing on merits.

Issue (ii): Setting aside delay-based appellate dismissal and conditional restoration of appeals

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court acknowledged the State's submission that, under Section 107(1)(4), the appellate authority lacks power to condone delay beyond the period stipulated, and that the appeals were dismissed as time-barred.

Interpretation and reasoning: While accepting that the appellate authority may not have power to condone delay, the Court emphasized the "peculiar facts and circumstances" and that the appeals were dismissed merely on the ground of delay, leaving substantial liability to be pursued without appellate consideration. To balance equities and protect revenue, the Court fashioned a conditional remedy by requiring a substantial deposit and directing expeditious merit-based disposal after hearing.

Conclusion: The Court set aside both appellate dismissal orders and ordered that, upon deposit of a combined sum of Rs. 75 lakhs within ten days before the adjudicating authority, the appeals shall stand restored and be decided on merits after granting opportunity of hearing. The demand was made subject to the outcome of the restored appeals. If the deposit is not made within the stipulated time, the assessee loses the benefit of the order and recovery may proceed in accordance with law. The Court expressly declined to enter into the merits of the tax, interest, and penalty components.

---