In a recent case, the Kerala High Court has set aside the order passed under section 107(12) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act (CGST), 2017 without stating points for determination and reasons for decision.
St. Antony Trading And Transport Pvt. Limited, the petitioner challenges the orders of the Appellate Authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act’) for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Pursuant to orders issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the aforementioned two financial years, petitioner preferred appeals before the respondent.
Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here
However, by the impugned orders, both the appeals were dismissed after noticing the non-appearance of the petitioner. Despite granting three adjournments, when the petitioner failed to appear for hearing, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals without formulating any of the points for determination and even without giving any reason except the non-appearance of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the above two orders, petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that section 107(12) of the CGST Act specifically stated that the order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination and the reasons for the decision.
Failure to Pay Admitted Income Tax amount Due to Financial Crisis: Madras HC Directs Installment Payments [Read Order]
In the light of sub-clause (12) of Section 107 of the CGST Act, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has to consider the matter on merits and is not entitled to dismiss an appeal merely for non-appearance. Of course, when there is failure of the appellant to appear, the Appellate Authority shall not grant more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the appeal. Despite the failure of an appellant to appear, the Appellate Authority has to pass an order after determining the points for consideration, and the decision should be on merits.
The court found that the points for determination had not been stated and the order was not issued on merits. There is no consideration of any of the issues raised by the appellant, and hence, the impugned order is perverse and is liable to be interfered with, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The single bench set aside the order and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, after granting a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Ammu Charles appeared for the petitioner, and Jasmin M. M. appeared for the Government Pleader.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
