Arval India Private Limited Vs India and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an Appellate Authority exercising jurisdiction under Section 107 of the CGST/HGST Act cannot dismiss an appeal merely for default, non-appearance or non-prosecution. Arval India Private Limited challenged the order dated 08.03.2025 arising from the appellate proceedings concerning an order dated 20.02.2025.
The petitioner argued that Section 107 requires the Appellate Authority to decide an appeal on merits by confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. Although the appellant may be proceeded against ex parte upon its failure to appear, dismissal for non-prosecution is not one of the statutory options available to the authority. The petitioner relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Balaji Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, concerning the analogous provisions of Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Patna High Court’s decision in Purushottam Stores Vs. State of Bihar.
The State contended that three opportunities had been granted and the appeal was properly dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear. Rejecting this contention, the High Court observed that Section 107(11) expressly obliges the Appellate Authority, after making any necessary inquiry, to pass a just and proper order confirming, modifying or annulling the decision appealed against.
