In the interest of justice, the order whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without hearing the counsel for the appellant is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.11.2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without hearing his counsel. The respondent goods were intercepted and detained on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the relevant E-way bills. The petitioner submitted that there was no requirement of E-way bill as the invoice demand was less than 50,000/- and further it was on account of sheer inadvertence that the driver did not carry the relevant E-way bills. An order dated 25.2.2019 was passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was heard in the absence of the counsels for the petitioner by the Appellate Authority holding that despite notice, no one has appeared. The said Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.11.2019. The petitioner submitted that his counsel was suffering from high fever from 11.11.2019 to 17.11.2019 and as such he could not file the adjournment application for the next date which was 15.11.2019.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 16.11.2019 and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant.
In the interest of justice, the order whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without hearing the counsel for the appellant is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Goods in Transit --The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.11.2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without hearing his counsel. The respondent goods were intercepted and detained on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the relevant E-way bills. The petitioner submitted that there was no requirement of E-way bill as the invoice demand was less than 50,000/- and further it was on account of sheer inadvertence that the driver did not carry the relevant E-way bills. An order dated 25.2.2019 was passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was heard in the absence of the counsels for the petitioner by the Appellate Authority holding that despite notice, no one has appeared. The said Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.11.2019. The petitioner submitted that his counsel was suffering from high fever from 11.11.2019 to 17.11.2019 and as such he could not file the adjournment application for the next date which was 15.11.2019.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 16.11.2019 and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the appellant.