Appellate Authorities cannot dismiss appeals for non-appearance; they must pass a reasoned order on merits.

The Dispute: Summary Dismissal vs. Speaking Order

The Conflict: The assessee filed an appeal against a GST demand, raising specific technical grounds:

Procedural Lapses: That they had replied to the show-cause notice (RFT-08) on time, but it was ignored.
Natural Justice: That no personal hearing was granted by the lower authority.
System Errors: That delays in filing (RFT-01) were due to technical glitches on the GST portal, not negligence.

The Appellate Action: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the case in a single stroke because the assessee did not attend the scheduled hearing. The merits of the written appeal memo were never discussed.

The Judicial Verdict: Victory for Due Process

The Court quashed the dismissal and remanded the matter, establishing three critical legal mandates:

1. No Dismissal for Default

Unlike civil courts, tax appellate authorities under Section 107 do not have the power to dismiss an appeal simply because the appellant is absent. The authority must examine the “grounds of appeal” already submitted in the appeal memo.

2. The Requirement of a “Speaking Order”

Under Section 107(12), the order of the Appellate Authority must be in writing and must state the “points for determination,” the “decision thereon,” and the “reasons for the decision.” A dismissal for non-appearance fails this statutory test because it doesn’t address the core dispute.

3. Mandatory Personal Hearing (Section 75)

The court noted the assessee’s grievance that a personal hearing was denied even at the original stage. Under Section 75(4), a hearing is mandatory if an adverse decision is contemplated or if the taxpayer specifically requests one.

Strategic Takeaways for 2026 Compliance

The “Memo” is Your Shield: Always ensure your Statement of Facts and Grounds of Appeal in the appeal filing (Form GST APL-01) are comprehensive. Even if you miss a hearing due to an emergency, the authority is legally bound to read and decide based on those written grounds.
Portal Errors as a Defense: Since the court acknowledged “system-driven delays,” keep screenshots or “Ticket IDs” from the GST Helpdesk if you face portal issues. These serve as valid evidence to excuse technical delays in filing RFT-01/08.
The “Second Chance” Rule: The court clarified that if the matter is remanded and you fail to appear again, the authority still cannot dismiss it for default—they must write a judgment based on your documents. However, it is always advisable to attend or seek an adjournment to avoid an ex-parte order on merits.
Faceless Appeals: In the current 2026 environment of faceless appeals, the “Written Submission” is everything. Since the physical presence is replaced by video conferencing, the quality of your uploaded PDF determines the outcome.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

SFC Global Commodity (P.) Ltd.

Union of India^*

A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1553 of 2026

MARCH 13, 2026

Hardik P. Modh for the Petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, Asstt. Govt. Pleader and Ms. Hetal G. Patel, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Supehia, J.- RULE returnable forthwith. Learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. Since short issue is involved in the petition, the matter is taken up for final hearing and final disposal.

2. At the outset, we may say that learned advocate Mr.Modh for the petitioner has not challenged the vires of Rule 96(5A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, at this stage.

3. We have noticed that the petitioner-assessee as well as the respondent have committed irregularity before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had, while challenging the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.4 -Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, had filed his written submissions specifically challenging the said order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as well as timely filing the replies to both RFT-08 notices and requesting for personal hearing. However, the authority below had not granted any such opportunity. It was specifically contended by the appellant that the impugned order has been passed in breach of Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017. Further grounds were also raised by the petitioner in his appeal by specifically pointing out that generation of RFT-01 belatedly was on account of administrative lapse and the system auto generating the application which should not have prejudiced the petitioner.

3.1 All these contentions raised by the petitioners have been ignored by the Appellate Authority by merely observing that since the petitioner / appellant was though afforded an opportunity of hearing to remain personally present, he did not remain present and hence the appeal was liable to be rejected and accordingly the appeal was disallowed.

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.

4. Hence, the Appellate Order dated 24.09.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

We clarify that in case the petitioner does not remain present on personal hearings, the Appellate Authority shall consider the grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner in his appeal memo and decide the same in accordance with law. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of 12 weeks.

5. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No orders as to cots.