Rajesh Kumar Archives - Tax Heal https://www.taxheal.com/tag/rajesh-kumar Complete Guide for Income Tax and GST in India Wed, 28 Oct 2026 11:22:53 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3 GSTAT Appellate Bench may dismiss defective appecals for non-prosecution when defects remain uncured despite opportunities https://www.taxheal.com/and-sungita-sharma-technical-member-13.html Wed, 28 Oct 2026 11:22:53 +0000 https://www.taxheal.com/?p=143099 GSTAT Appellate Bench may dismiss defective appecals for non-prosecution when defects remain uncured despite opportunities Issue Whether the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under Rules 10 and 24 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 when the appellant fails to cure defect notices and persistently… Read More »

]]>
GSTAT Appellate Bench may dismiss defective appecals for non-prosecution when defects remain uncured despite opportunities

Issue

  • Whether the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution under Rules 10 and 24 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 when the appellant fails to cure defect notices and persistently fails to appear before the Bench.

Facts

  • The appellant presented an appeal before the GSTAT Registry.
  • Upon scrutiny, the Registry identified several defects in the memorandum of appeal and supporting documents and served a defect memo on the appellant.
  • Despite the lapse of sufficient time, the appellant failed to cure the defect items.
  • The matter was placed before the Assistant Registrar and subsequently listed before the Division Bench on multiple occasions.
  • On each scheduled hearing, no representative or counsel appeared for the appellant, no adjournment request was submitted, and the defects remained uncured.

Decision

  • Inherent Powers of Tribunal: Rule 10 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025 preserves the inherent power of the Tribunal to make orders necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of process.
  • Scrutiny and Rejection Power: Rule 24 mandates the scrutiny and removal of defects, empowering the Bench to direct registration or reject an appeal after notice.
  • Dismissal for Non-Prosecution: Because adequate opportunity was provided to cure defects and persistent non-appearance demonstrated abandonment of the appeal, keeping defective proceedings pending served no purpose.
  • Dismissal Without Merits Opinion: The defective appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution without expressing any opinion on the underlying merits of the case, in favor of the Revenue.

Key Takeaways

  • Duty to Cure Registry Defects: Appellants before the GSTAT must actively rectify defective filings within prescribed timelines upon receiving a defect memorandum.
  • Powers of Dismissal for Abandonment: Continuous non-appearance combined with failure to cure registry defects constitutes abandonment, entitling the Tribunal to invoke its inherent powers under Rule 10 and Rule 24 to reject the appeal.
  • No Adjudication on Merits: Dismissal for non-prosecution terminates defective proceedings administratively and procedurally without creating a precedent on the underlying tax merits.
GOODS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , GHAZIABAD BENCH
Afia Steel Ispat Private Limited
v.
Rajesh Kumar, Additional Commissioner of SGST (Appeal)*
Dr. Sanjay Kumar Chandhariyavi, Judicial Member
and SUNGITA SHARMA, Technical Member
APL/D9/GZB/2026
OCTOBER  15, 2026
Rajesh for the Appellant.
ORDER
1. The present Appeal was presented before the Registry of this Tribunal. Upon scrutiny under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, the Registry noticed certain defects in the memorandum of appeal and the accompanying documents. Despite service of the defect memo and lapse of sufficient time, the appellant failed to cure the defects. Consequently, the appeal remained defective. In accordance with Rule 24 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, the matter was placed before the Asst Registrar. Since the defects continued to remain uncured despite the opportunity granted, the Asst Registrar directed that the defective appeal be listed before the Bench for appropriate order. Accordingly, the matter was listed before this Division Bench on 06.08.2026, 21.08.2026, 10.09.2026 and 25.09.2026. On every occasion, none appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The matter was, therefore, directed to be listed today. Today, when the matter was called in open tribunal proceeding , none appeared on behalf of the Appellant. The matter was called repeatedly during the course of the proceedings. Neither the appellant nor any authorised representative appeared. No application for adjournment has been filed. Even today, the defects pointed out by the Registry continue to remain uncured. The conduct of the appellant clearly manifests complete lack of interest in prosecuting the present appeal. A litigant invoking the statutory appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal is expected to prosecute the proceedings with due diligence. Mere filing of an appeal does not entitle a litigant to keep defective proceedings pending indefinitely without complying with the statutory requirements. Before passing any order there is need to consider provision laid down under section 10 of the GSTAT Rule and general concept of Inherent power. Inherent Power refers to powers that are not expressly provided by statute but are necessary to secure the ends of justice; prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal; and ensure effective exercise of the jurisdiction expressly conferred by the statute to any Tribunal or Court.
2. So far as GSTAT Rule is concerned Rule 10 expressly provides for inherent power of the GSTAT. As per Rule 10 nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Appellate Tribunal to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Appellate Tribunal. The above principles and law are founded upon the salutary legal maxims Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights) and Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is in the public interest that there should be an end to litigation).
3. Now we also consider legal provision laid down under Rule 24 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025 which prescribes procedure for scrutiny of appeals and removal of defects. It envisages that where defects are not removed despite notice, the matter shall be placed before the Registrar and, thereafter, before the appropriate Bench. The Rule expressly empowers the Bench, after hearing the party, either to direct registration of the appeal or to reject the same. In the present case, the Registry followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 24. Adequate opportunities were afforded to the Appellant to remove defects. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Division Bench on three occasions. Despite repeated opportunities, the appellant neither removed the defects nor appeared before this Tribunal. No explanation whatsoever has been furnished for such persistent default. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellant has abandoned the prosecution of the present appeal. Keeping such a defective appeal pending would serve no useful purpose and would unnecessarily burden the docket of this Tribunal. This is a fit case for exercise of the power vested in this Bench under Rule 10 and 24 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025.
ORDER
4. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 10 and 24 of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2025, and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the defective Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pronounced in open Court on this 15 th day of October, 2026.
]]>