Shakti Industrial House Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II) (GSTAT)
Summary: The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Shakti Industrial House for want of prosecution without examining its merits. The appeal, registered as APL/DD35/HYD/2026, arose from OIA No. HYD-GST-SC-AP2-349-2023-24 dated 31.01.2024 and involved non-payment of late fee and allegedly ineligible Input Tax Credit.
The Registry identified four defects, including failure to upload the relevant show-cause notice, failure to furnish legible copies of the order-in-original, non-payment of the prescribed court fee and omission of basic particulars such as respondent details. Although the Registry granted hearings on 27.04.2026, 13.05.2026 and 02.06.2026, the appellant did not cure the defects.
The Bench thereafter provided three further opportunities for appearance on 15.07.2026, 29.07.2026 and 02.09.2026. Neither the appellant nor its counsel appeared, and no communication explaining their absence was received. Referring to Rule 10 and Rule 42 of the GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025, the Tribunal observed that it possessed inherent powers to secure justice and could dismiss an appeal for default when the appellant failed to appear.
Since the appellant had neither removed the defects nor appeared despite six opportunities collectively granted by the Registry and the Bench, the Tribunal found that no further time could be allowed. It accordingly dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. However, the appellant was granted liberty to seek restoration under the proviso to Rule 42 within a reasonable time.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GSTAT
None appeared for the Appellant today, i.e. on 02.09.2026.
Shri PVV Satyanarayana and Shri Suresh has appeared for the Respondents
Order Per Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas, Member (Technical)
1. From the records it was observed that M/s Shakti Industrial House filed this appeal APL/DD35/HYD/2026 against OIA No. HYD-GST-SC-AP2-349-2023-24, Dated 31.01.2024, and the same is listed with defects no.2026056/10100/0148. The issues involved are non-payment of late fee and claiming of ineligible Input Tax Credit.
2. From the records, it is seen that, a defect Memo was issued by the Registry listing out four defects which includes, non-uploading of SCN concerned, legible copies of OIO concerned, non-payment of full court fee as prescribed, non-furnishing basic details like Respondent etc.
3. Further, it was observed that First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant, after issuing deficiency memo, for delayed filing of the appeal.
4. Registry has given three hearings on 27.04.2026, 13.05.2026 and 02.06.2026. On the first day of hearing, i.e. on 27.04.2026, Shri Pradeep Kumar Jain, CS of the Appellant company was present and Registry has explained the defects and the need for curing the same within the prescribed time.
5. It appears that the Appellant has not taken any steps to cure the defects pointed out by the Registry afterwards.
6. Rule 24 of GST Procedure Rules, 2026 requires defective appeal to undergo scrutiny and permits escalation to the Registrar and placing the appeal before the appropriate Bench, where the notified defects remain unrectified. Accordingly, the matter was placed before this Bench for directions.
7. Following principles of natural justice, the Bench has given three chances for appearance to the Appellant on 15.07.2026, 29.07.2026 and 02.09.2026. Neither the Appellant nor his Counsel were present on all the three occasions. As seen from the records, no communication from the appellant was received in this regard, as on today.
8. Rule 10 of GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025 preserves the Tribunal’s inherent powers to make orders necessary to secure justice or prevent abuse of process of law.
9. Further, Rule 42 of GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025 states that “where on the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal or on any other day to which such hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Appellate Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits”.
10. As stated above, the Appellant has not rectified the defects pointed out earlier three times by the Registry and three times by the Bench, which shows lack of interest on the part of the Appellant to proceed with this appeal.
11. Sufficient time has been given to the Appellant; no further time can be granted.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution without examining the merits.
13. The Appellant is at liberty to request for restoration as prescribed under Proviso to Rule 42 within reasonable time.
