Non-Attendance in GST First Appeals: Dismissal for Default or Decision on Merits Under Section 107
Summary: Article examines whether a first appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 can be dismissed for non-prosecution when the appellant fails to attend the hearing. It states that Section 107 requires the Appellate Authority to pass a written order specifying the points for determination, the decision and the reasons, and contends that non-attendance permits only ex parte proceedings, not summary dismissal. The article discusses the statutory framework under Section 107, Form GST APL-01, the absence of express provisions for dismissal and restoration of appeals, the inability of the Appellate Authority to remand matters, and the requirement to pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering the appeal record, grounds, documents and applicable law. It also compares the CGST framework with the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, refers to judicial decisions supporting and opposing the issue, outlines the procedure for ex parte disposal on merits, and concludes that non-attendance should result in closure of the opportunity of personal hearing while requiring the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits by passing a reasoned order under Sections 107(11) and 107(12).
Introduction.
The Goods and Services Tax law provides an effective appellate mechanism to ensure that any person aggrieved by an order passed by an adjudicating authority has an opportunity to seek justice. The right of appeal is a statutory right and can be exercised only in the manner and subject to the conditions prescribed under the CGST Act. Section 107 of the CGST Act provides for the first appellate remedy against orders passed by the adjudicating authority.
Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 requires a written appellate order stating the points for determination, the decision on those points and the reasons for the decision. When an appellant does not attend the hearing, may the first Appellate Authority dismiss the appeal for default, or must it decide the appeal on the written record? .
In this article single issue “ Whether, it is mandatory to the Appellate Authority to decide appeal ex-parte on merit in case of non-attendance of the appellant?” is discussed.
The Issue .
A first appeal under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the “CGST Act”) is a statutory remedy. Its conditions—limitation, pre-deposit, prescribed form and procedure—must be observed. After admission of an appeal a recurring procedural question arises: if the appellant or authorised representative does not attend the hearing despite notice, may the Appellate Authority dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, or must it decide the appeal ex parte on merits?
The preferable view is that non-attendance permits the authority to close the opportunity of personal hearing and proceed ex parte, but not to dispose of the appeal by a bare dismissal for default. The authority must examine the appeal memorandum, statements of facts, grounds of appeal, prayer, documents and adjudication record and pass the reasoned order required by section 107(12). That conclusion is strongly supported by decisions of the Patna, Kerala and Gujarat High Courts, although the Allahabad High Court has taken a contrary view.
Concept and object of first appeal.
Chapter XVIII of the CGST Act deals with first Appeal mechanism under GST makes clear the intention and object of the legislature to provide meaningful and effective appeal remedy to the aggrieved person to settled maximum disputes at the level of the Appellate Authority; and accordingly made detailed provisions on all aspects, including filing of appeal, limitation period, pre-deposit, hearing of appeal, time limit for disposal of appeal , passing of speaking and reasoned appeal order and communication of the order.
Necessity of appeal remedy it’s object, importance of dispute resolution and intention of the appeal is explained by the CBIC in e flyer ‘ GST-Appeal and Review Mechanism’
“Tax laws (or any laws, for that matter) impose obligations. Such obligations are broadly of two kinds: tax-related and procedure-related. The taxpayer’s compliance with these obligations is verified by the tax officer (by various instruments such as scrutiny, audit, anti-evasion, etc.), as a result of which sometimes there are situations of actual or perceived non-compliance. If the difference in views persists, it results into a dispute, which is then required to be resolved. Tax law recognizes that on any given set of facts and laws, there can be different opinions or viewpoints. Hence, it is likely that the taxpayer may not agree with the “adjudication order” so passed by the tax officer. It is equally possible that the Department may itself not be in agreement with the adjudication order in some cases. It is for this reason that the statute provides further channels of appeal, to both sides. However, since the right to appeal is a statutory right, the statute also places reasonable fetters on the exercise of that right. The time limits prescribed by the statute for filing of appeals and the requirement of pre-deposit of a certain sum before the appeal can be heard by the competent authority are examples of such fetters on the statutory right.
A person who is aggrieved by a decision or order passed against him by an adjudicating authority, can file an appeal to the Appellate Authority (AA, for short). It is important to note that it is only the aggrieved person who can file the appeal. Also, the appeal must be against a decision or order passed under the Act
The AA has to follow the principles of natural justice – such as hearing the appellant, allowing reasonable adjournments (not more than 3), permitting additional grounds (if found reasonable), etc. The AA can also make such further inquiry as may be necessary.
On conclusion of the appeal process, the AA will pass his order (Order-inAppeal) which may confirm, modify or annul the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the authority that passed the said decision or order.
The Order-in-appeal has to be a “speaking order” i.e. it should state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The law provides an advisory time limit of 1 year from date of filing of appeal for the AA to decide the appeal.”
Statutory architecture of section 107
The answer to the issue involved in this article lies principally in sub-sections (5) to (12):
Section 107(5) requires the appellant to file an appeal in FORM-GST-APL-01 along with the relevant documents, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and prayer, with declaration ( clause 10 of GST-APL-01) of whether he wish to be heard in person.
Section 107(8) requires the Appellate Authority to give the appellant an opportunity of being heard.
Section 107(9) permits adjournment for sufficient cause, but ordinarily limits adjournments to three.
Section 107(10) allows an omitted ground to be raised where the omission was not wilful or unreasonable.
Rule 112 allows to produce additional evidence in prescribed circumstances.
Section 107(11) empowers the authority, after such further inquiry as may be necessary, to pass such order as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. It cannot remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.
Section 107(12) requires the appellate order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for that decision.
These provisions describe adjudication, not administrative closure. A one-line conclusion that the appellant was absent and the appeal is therefore dismissed for non-attendance does not identify the points for determination, decide the grounds, or give reasons addressing the controversy. Nor does it confirm, modify or annul the adjudication order through an independent appellate assessment.
The absence of a power of remand is also significant. Parliament expected the first Appellate Authority to resolve the controversy at its level. That responsibility is not displaced merely because oral assistance is unavailable by way of personal hearing.
Form GST APL-01 and the nature of personal hearing
Section 107(5) provides that every appeal shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be prescribed. Rule 108 prescribes Form GST APL-01 for an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The form contains the statement of facts, grounds of appeal, prayer and documents ; and clause 10 asks whether the appellant wishes to be heard in person. The option is procedural; it does not determine whether the statutory appeal survives.
If “Yes” is selected, a reasonable and meaningful opportunity of personal hearing must be given. Appearance may be through an authorised representative under section 116. If “No” is selected, the matter may be decided on the written record. Where “Yes” is selected but the appellant later remains absent despite proper notice and adequate opportunity, the authority may treat personal hearing as waived for that stage and proceed ex parte. The absence is not, without more, a withdrawal of the appeal, an admission of liability or an abandonment of the pleaded grounds.
This distinction is important: natural justice requires a fair opportunity; it does not oblige the authority to compel attendance or grant endless adjournments. The consequence of default should be loss of personal hearing and oral advocacy—not loss of an appellate determination.
Why a summary dismissal is difficult to sustain?
Summary dismissal is not sustainable due to following reasons.
First-The mandatory speaking-order requirement u/s 107(12).
Second- Absence of provisions for dismissal and restoration of appeal.
Third- Presence of express provision of communication of copy of appeal to the appellant and higher authorities.
Fourth-Requirement of just and proper appeal order.
Fifth-No power to refer the case back to the adjudicating authority.
Sixth- Comparative Position under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002.
Seventh-Supreme Court Judgment under Central Excise Act.
Eighth- Case Law under GST Act
First-The mandatory speaking-order requirement u/s 107(12).
It is expressly provided in the section 107(12) that the order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. This provisions contemplate adjudication of the appeal and not its summary rejection merely because appellant failed to attend.
These provisions contemplate adjudication of the controversy. An order merely stating that the appellant remained absent and that the appeal is consequently dismissed summarily does not determine the grounds of appeal or satisfy Section 107(12).
Natural justice requires the grant of reasonable opportunity; it does not require the authority to compel attendance or adjourn proceedings indefinitely. Once hearing notice has been properly served and adequate opportunities have been granted, the authority may proceed without personal hearing. However, it must consider Form GST APL-01, the statement of facts, grounds, documents, written submissions and adjudication record. Even an ex parte order must demonstrate application of mind to the material grounds and the record.
Second- Absence of express provisions for dismissal and restoration of appeal.
The CGST Act and Rules do not expressly provide a comprehensive procedure for dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution and it’s restoration on sufficient cause.
The absence of such a mechanism supports the view that the appeal should not be dismissed summarily. Otherwise, the appellant may permanently lose the first appellate remedy without: determination of the grounds; examination of the documents; a decision on merits; or an effective statutory remedy for restoration. On the contrary it is expressly provided in section 107(12) that order should be speaking and reasoned by stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.
In procedural regimes that authorise dismissal for default, the power is commonly paired with a recall or restoration remedy. Importing the adverse half of such a regime without its remedial half may extinguish the first appeal without adjudication and compel avoidable writ or further appellate proceedings.
Had there been intention to give power to dismiss appeal for default it could have expressly made in this section along with restoration mechanism. Absence of such provisions manifest that appeal cannot be decided ex-parte summarily for non-attendance and require to decide on merit by passing order as per section 107(12) of the Act.
Third- Presence of express provision of communication of copy of appeal to the appellant and higher authorities.
In section 107(14) & (15) express provisions have been made for communication of copy of order to the appellant and higher authorities. This makes clear that section 107 is complete code for appeal procedure and take care of small things like communication of order. Had there been intention to give power to dismiss appeal for default it could have expressly made in this section along with restoration mechanism. Absence of such provisions infer that appeal cannot be decided ex-parte summarily for non-attendance and require to decide on merit by passing order as per section 107(12) of the Act.
Fourth-Requirement of just and proper appeal order.
The Appellate Authority require to confirm, modify or annul the decision appealed against. Those alternatives presuppose evaluation of the impugned order. They are inconsistent with a disposal that never tests the order against the grounds of appeal. The words “just and proper” and the power to make further inquiry reinforce, rather than dilute, that duty.
It is mandatory to issue merit based just and proper appeal order, keeping in view provisions of section 107(12) of the Act and after considering the relevant record and submission/grounds of appeal and making further inquiry if necessary. No just and proper appeal order can be passed without application of mind to the grounds raised in the appeal and documents relied upon.
Fifth-No power to refer the case back to the adjudicating authority.
The Appellate Authority has no power of refer the case back to the adjudicating authority. This indicate that either he has to decide the appeal by after considering findings of hearing, the relevant record and submission/grounds of appeal where appellant is heard in appeal; or by considering the statement of facts, grounds of appeal, prayer and documents filed with an application; and findings of case record, where appellant failed to attend.
Absence of remand back power cast more responsibility on the Appellate Authority to be cautious and responsible in giving full justice at the first appellate stage; which demand that every appeal order including ex-parte should be just and proper on merit by considering all available record with him and to see that appellant need not to go to the Appellate Tribunal for the matter which could have been settled at his level.
Sixth- Comparative Position under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act 2002.
The position under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 and the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 was materially different from the first appellate framework under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Rule 36(2) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules expressly permitted the Appellate Authority to dismiss an appeal where the appellant failed to appear, either personally or through an authorised agent, on the date fixed for hearing. The Rules also contained a corresponding remedial mechanism enabling the appellant to apply for setting aside the summary rejection or dismissal.
The appellant could seek restoration by establishing that: notice of hearing was not duly served; he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called; or another recognised procedural cause prevented proper prosecution.
The restoration application was required to be considered promptly. The prescribed procedure further contemplated deemed restoration where the application for setting aside the dismissal was not decided within the stipulated period.
Thus, the MVAT procedural scheme contained two complementary provisions: an express power to dismiss an appeal for non-attendance; and an express power and procedure to restore the appeal upon sufficient cause.
No comparable provisions exist in the CGST Act or the CGST Rules governing a first appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107. Section 107 does not expressly authorise dismissal for default, and the Rules do not provide a general application for restoration of such a dismissed first appeal.
The comparison is important because, where the legislature or rule-making authority intends to confer power to dismiss for default, it ordinarily also provides a corresponding restoration remedy. The absence of both provisions in the GST first appellate scheme supports the conclusion that non-attendance should result only in closure of personal hearing and ex parte disposal on merits, rather than summary dismissal of the appeal.
Even under the MVAT framework, the procedural power under Rule 36(2) was held to be subordinate to the substantive appellate mandate contained in Section 26(5)(a).
M/s National Building Construction, Nagpur & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 6371 of 2024, decided on 23 October 2024, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench;)
The Court held that Rule 36(2) of the MVAT Rules, being subordinate legislation, could not override Section 26(5)(a) of the MVAT Act. An appeal against an assessment order was therefore required to be decided by confirming, reducing, enhancing or annulling the assessment, rather than being dismissed merely for non-attendance.
Priyanka Motors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 8704 of 2025, decided on 30 June 2025, Bombay High Court, Civil AppellateJurisdiction;2025:BHC-AS:26674-DB..
In this case the High Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders dismissing the VAT second appeal for absence of the consultant and refusing restoration. It held that the Tribunal was obliged to decide the appeal on merits under Section 26(5)(a) of the MVAT Act.
Seventh-Supreme Court Judgment under Central Excise Act.
M/s Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, (2014-TIOL-92-SC-CX-LB)
The Supreme Court held that Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, which permitted dismissal for default, could not override Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal was required to decide the appeal on merits by confirming, modifying or annulling the impugned decision. A procedural rule permitting dismissal for default could not override the statutory mandate This authority was expressly followed in both National Building Construction and Priyanka Motors.
In this case the sole question of law which arises for consideration is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.
The Arguments by the appellant: Even if the appellant was not present before the Tribunal when the appeal was taken up for hearing, it could not have been dismissed for want of prosecution as Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 enjoins upon the Tribunal to pass orders thereon as it thinks fit, that is, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as it may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. Thus, there is no power vested in the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution even if the appellant therein has not appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
The Arguments by the respondent – Revenue: Under Rule 20 of the Rules, the Tribunal has been given the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution if the appellant does not appear, and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal as also by the High Court calls for no interference.
Section 35C(1) of the Act which deals with the powers of the Tribunal reads as under:-
“35C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal.–(1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary.”
“RULE 20. Action on appeal for appellant’s default. — 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 Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the appeal for default or hear and decide it on merits:
Provided that where an appeal has been dismissed for default and the appellant appears afterwards and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and restore the appeal.”
Important observations of the Supreme Court.
Para 11- From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, we find that the Act enjoins upon the Tribunal to pass order on the appeal confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may remand the matter. It does not give any power to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default or for want of prosecution in case the appellant is not present when the appeal is taken up for hearing.
Para 12- A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai 1969 (1) SCC 591 = 2002-TIOL-1456-SC-IT-LB wherein this Court considered the provisions of Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 and Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946 which gave power to the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.Considering those provisions, the Court then held as under:-
“The scheme of the provisions of the Act relating to the Appellate Tribunal apparently is that it has to dispose of an appeal by making such orders as it thinks fit on the merits. It follows from the language of Section 33(4) and in particular the use of the word “thereon” that the Tribunal has to go into the correctness or otherwise of the points decided by the departmental authorities in the light of the submissions made by the appellant. This can only be done by giving a decision on the merits on questions of fact and law and not by merely disposing of the appeal on the ground that the party concerned has failed to appear
Para 7- Thus, looking at the substantive provisions of the Act there is no escape from the conclusion that under Section 33(4) the Appellate Tribunal has to dispose of the appeal on the merits and cannot short-circuit the same by dismissing it for default of appearance.”
Par 13- Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid case to the facts of the present case, as the two provisions are similar, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for want of prosecution and it ought to have decided the appeal on merits even if the appellant or its counsel was not present when the appeal was taken up for hearing. The High Court also erred in law in upholding the order of the Tribunal.
All aforesaid judgment support a general proposition: where the parent enactment prescribes the forms of substantive appellate disposal, procedural default should not be used to bypass that mandate. The language of Sections 107(11) and 107(12) is materially comparable and supports the application of the same principle to GST first appeals
The comparison therefore strengthens the GST position. If summary dismissal was regarded as impermissible under the MVAT Act despite an express procedural rule and a restoration mechanism, it is even more difficult to sustain such dismissal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, where neither an express dismissal power nor a corresponding restoration remedy has been prescribed.
Eighth- Case Law under GST Act.
M/s SFC Global Commodity Private Limited special civil application no. 1553 of 2026 date : 13/03/2026.
In this case Gujrat High Court has observed that
“Para 3.2 We find that the Appellate Authority while rejecting the appeal has committed an illegality by not dealing with the submissions raised by the petitioner in his appeal memo for the reason that the petitioner did not remain present though he was granted the opportunity of hearing. It is always open for the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned order by dealing with the grounds raised in the appeal memo even if the party does not remain present.
M/s St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), SGST Department, Kerala (W.P. (C) No. 14743 of 2025 | Order dated: 08.04.2025| Citation – 2025 (4) TMI 1153 – KERALA HIGH COURT)
The petitioner, St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt. Limited, challenged the dismissal of its appeals for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22 on the grounds of non-appearance before the Appellate Authority. The case raises a crucial question regarding whether the Appellate Authority is empowered to dismiss appeals solely on the basis of the appellant’s non-appearance without considering the merits of the case. Important observations.
Para4. The question that arises for determination is whether the Appellate Authority under CGST Act can dismiss appeals for default?
Para 5. Section 107(12) of the CGST Act specifically states 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. 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.
6. Interpreting Section 107of the CGST Act, a Division Bench of the High Court of Patna had, in Purushottam Stores vs. State of Bihar [(2023) 75 GSTL 276 (Patna)] observed as follows;
“The specific statutory mandate is that after hearing the appellant, the Appellate Authority is to make further enquiry, if found necessary and pass such orders as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. Such affirmation, modification or annulment shall not be an empty formality nor can it be mechanical, without the consideration of the grounds of appeal. We observe so, specifically when the Appellate Authority is empowered to refuse the prayer for adjournment made by an appellant, if on three prior occasions, such adjournment has been allowed, in which case also the Appellate Authority cannot absolve itself from the obligation to conduct such further enquiry as is mandated under sub- section (11) of Section 107. Sub-section (12), it has to be further emphasized, also requires the order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal to be in writing and specifically stating the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. When an appeal is dismissed for reason only of absence of the appellant or lack of effective prosecution, then the Tribunal should be found to have abdicated its powers and not followed the statutory mandate.”
In the case of Nav Nirman Constructions WP NO 16940 of 2023 DECIDED on 6.12.2023 Hon’ble High Court of Patna held that the Appellate Authority has a duty and an obligation under the statute to look into the merits of the matter and also examine the grounds raised by the appellant, even if there is no presence recorded of the appellant before the Appellate Authority and decide the issue on merits. Relevant observation are reproduced.
“Para 2.-We have already held in Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors; CWJC No. 4349 of 2023 decided on 25.04.2023; looking at the provisions of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act especially sub-sections (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) of Section 107 of the Act, that the Appellate Authority has a duty and an obligation under the statute to look into the merits of the matter and also examine the grounds raised by the appellant, even if there is no presence recorded of the appellant before the Appellate Authority and decide the issue on merits. The Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution would be abdicating its powers especially looking at the provisions where the Appellate Authority has been empowered to conduct such further enquiry as found necessary to decide the appeal, which decision also shall be on the points raised.”
The contrary view: Archita Tour and Travels
In M/s Archita Tour and Travels v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Writ Tax No. 226 of 2024, decided 1 October 2024, 2024:AHC-LKO:68213, the Allahabad High Court held that an appellate authority confronted with the appellant’s absence could dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and should not dismiss it on merits. The Court drew upon the principle reflected in Order XLI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whose Explanation prevents a civil appellate court from dismissing an absent appellant’s appeal on merits.
The decision creates a genuine conflict of approach and should be stated candidly. With respect, however, its transposition to section 107 is open to question. Order XLI rule 17 expressly authorises dismissal for default, while Order XLI rule 19 provides a restoration mechanism. Section 107 contains neither feature. Applying only the dismissal principle, without the paired restoration remedy, risks defeating the self-contained statutory safeguards in section 107(11) and (12).
Further, a merits-based ex parte order is not equivalent to an adverse decision based solely on absence. The authority must independently evaluate the written grounds and record. If those materials justify relief, the appeal may be allowed in whole or in part despite non-attendance.
Ex-parte disposal of appeal on merit.
In order to pass reasoned order in view of section 107(12) of the Act , where an appellant failed to attend to personal hearing, the Appellate Authority require to :
verify that the hearing notice was lawfully served and record the mode and date of service;
record earlier opportunities, adjournments and any request for further time;
if no sufficient cause exists, close the opportunity of personal hearing and state that the matter will proceed ex parte;
consider Form GST APL-01, the statement of facts, every material ground, documents and written submissions already filed, the adjudication record, findings / observations of the adjudicating authority and the applicable law;
formulate the points for determination and give decision on each points along with justification and reasoned finding ;
and state clearly whether the adjudication order is confirmed, modified or annulled and specify the resulting liability or relief.
The authority should not treat absence as proof of the department’s case. Statutory ingredients—such as taxability, ineligibility of input tax credit, fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression or the conditions for penalty—must still be established on the record.
Conclusion
An appellant must submit detailed statement of facts, grounds of appeal, prayer and all relevant documents relied upon along with GST-APL-01. He must prosecute the appeal diligently, attend hearings and comply with procedural directions. Repeated or unexplained non-attendance may justify closure of personal hearing and ex parte proceedings.
However, absence should not result in summary dismissal for non-prosecution. Where the appellant selected “Yes” in Clause 10 but failed to attend after reasonable opportunity, the Appellate authority may treat the opportunity of personal hearing as waived and may pass speaking just and proper order contemplated u/s 107(12) by considering all available relevant record.
Non-attendance is not withdrawal of the appeal, admission of liability or abandonment of the grounds. The Appellate Authority must decide the appeal on merits by considering the facts, grounds , documents, adjudication record and applicable law and must pass a reasoned order conforming to Sections 107(11) and 107(12).
Non-attendance may disentitle the appellant from insisting upon repeated oral hearing or further adjournment, but it does not relieve the Appellate Authority of its statutory duty to adjudicate the appeal on merits. A summary dismissal for default is particularly inappropriate because the CGST appellate framework contains no express provision for recall or restoration of such dismissal
Considering object and intention of the first appeal under GST Act and by interpreting section 107 correctly and in view of the aforesaid case law, it appear that first appeal cannot be dismissed summarily for non-attendance and require to pass reasoned order on merit.
Cases Discussed
- M/s SFC Global Commodity Private Limited (Gujarat High Court), Special Civil Application No. 1553 of 2026, dated 13/03/2026
- Priyanka Motors v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court), Writ Petition No. 8704 of 2025, decided on 30 June 2025, 2025:BHC-AS:26674-DB
- M/s St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), SGST Department (Kerala High Court), W.P. (C) No. 14743 of 2025 | Order dated: 08.04.2025 | Citation – 2025 (4) TMI 1153 – KERALA HIGH COURT
- M/s National Building Construction, Nagpur & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench), Writ Petition No. 6371 of 2024, decided on 23 October 2024
- M/s Archita Tour and Travels v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Allahabad High Court), Writ Tax No. 226 of 2024, decided 1 October 2024, 2024:AHC-LKO:68213
- Nav Nirman Constructions (Patna High Court), WP NO 16940 of 2023, decided on 6.12.2023
- Purushottam Stores vs. State of Bihar (Patna High Court), (2023) 75 GSTL 276 (Patna)
- Purushottam Stores vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 4349 of 2023 decided on 25.04.2023
- M/s Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs (SC), 2014-TIOL-92-SC-CX-LB
- The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras vs. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai (SC), 1969 (1) SCC 591 = 2002-TIOL-1456-SC-IT-LB
*****
Motiram Kanadje | Retired Joint Commissioner of State Tax | Author can be reached via email E-mail momakanadje@gmail.com
Disclaimer: Nothing contained in this document is to be construed as legal opinion or view of author whatsoever and the content is to be used strictly for informational and educational purposes. While due care has been taken in preparing this article, certain mistakes and omissions may creep in. The author does not accept any liability for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this article nor for any action taken in reliance thereon.
