Gaurav Trading Company vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Can Department give more than 3 adjournment? What will happen if you miss 3 hearings and ex-parte Order is passed against you? Do you have any remedy left in such case? Timelines and Facts of the case: 27-Nov-20: Show Cause Notice issued for Cancellation of Registration Notice remained unreplied 07-Dec-20: Registration was cancelled Revocation Application was filed by the Petitioner 26-Apr-21: Revocation Application was Rejected Appeal was filed before First Appeallate Authority against rejection of Revocation Hearings were on 6-Jul-21, 24-Sep-21 and 2-Nov-21 Neither Petitioner nor his Authorised Representative appeared before First Appeallate Authority 17-Nov-21: Appeal was rejected as First Appeallate Authority was of view that maximum 3 Adjournments can be provided.

Against this Petitioner approached High Court High Court taking a lenient view directed the Appeallate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner on merits after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and decide the same within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In my View : GST Law states that 3 Adjournments can be granted by each party. This does not mean that 4th adjournment can’t be granted. There is indeed no reason for limiting the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used. The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used in the Statute, this paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. This is Golden Rule of Interpretation whereas Department intends to follow Literal Rule of Interpretation. In India Liberal Interpretation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India readily brings in the requirements of natural justice to administrative actions against a person. Therefore, in my View 4th, 5th, 6th even n’th adjournment can be given subject to there is sufficient cause for such adjournment.

Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner before this Court, who was registered under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017), was issued a show cause notice for cancellation of registration on 27th November, 2020. The said notice remained unreplied by the petitioner, pursuant to which the order for cancellation of registration was passed by the Taxing Authority on 7.12.2020. An application for revocation of cancellation of registration was preferred by the petitioner but the same was rejected by order dated 26.4.2021. Aggrieved by the order of rejection of the application for revocation of cancellation of registration, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority on 17.11.2021 has rejected the appeal on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner on three dates has not appeared and pressed the appeal and in view of Section 107(9) of the Act of 2017 only three adjournments can be granted and thereafter the First Appellate Authority proceeded to pass an ex parte order rejecting the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Ram  Krishna Garg Supplier vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ  Tax No.1064 of 2021, decided on 15.7.2022. According to the learned counsel, the notice was issued under Section 29(2)(a) of the Act of 2017 while the registration has been cancelled on the strength that bogus transaction has been entered between the petitioner and supplier firm under Section 74 of the Act.

Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition has submitted that no ground has been taken by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority was left with no option but to proceed and decide the appeal in absence of counsel for the appellant.

I have heard respective counsels for the parties and perused thematerial on record. This Court finds that by ex parte order the first appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as he has failed to appear before the authority on 6.4.2021, 24.9.2021 and 2.11.2021. Taking a lenient view, this Court directs the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal of the petitioner on merits after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and decide the same within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. This Court further directs that the petitioner’s counsel shall remain present on the date fixed by the First Appellate Authority and shall argue the matter on merits. In view of the said fact, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Allahabad High Court 

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law