Gujarat High Court Holds Appellate Authority Must Consider Documentary Evidence Even If Party Fails to Appear

In a significant decision, the Gujarat High Court addressed the procedural obligations of appellate authorities under the Integrated Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) when a party fails to appear for a hearing but has submitted documentary evidence before the adjudicating authority.

The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the appellate order that had set aside a refund sanction previously granted by the adjudicating authority. The refund application, initially sanctioned on 21 March 2024, was overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 27 February 2025 following an appeal by the department. The appellate authority’s order was challenged on the ground that it failed to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner before the adjudicating authority.

During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without any findings regarding the documentary evidence, and requested an opportunity to present all documents afresh. The respondent’s counsel countered that the appellate authority had acted in accordance with the IGST Act, specifically citing violations of Section 16(1) and Section 16(3), and noted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity for a personal hearing but failed to attend.

The High Court, after reviewing the record, observed that while the petitioner did not appear before the appellate authority despite being served with hearing notices, the appellate authority was nonetheless required to consider all documentary evidence that had been placed before the adjudicating authority. The court noted the petitioner’s explanation that he was under the impression a virtual hearing link would be provided, which did not occur, resulting in his absence.

The court held that although there was no procedural fault in the appellate authority proceeding in the petitioner’s absence, it was incumbent upon the authority to consider all relevant documentary evidence before passing its final order. The failure to do so warranted judicial intervention.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned appellate order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to deposit costs of Rs. 10,000 before the appellate authority due to his non-appearance, and was granted the opportunity to submit all relevant documents and appear on a date fixed by the authority. The appellate authority was instructed to pass a reasoned, speaking order after hearing the petitioner and considering all relevant documents within twelve weeks from the date of hearing.

The court clarified that its order should not be treated as a precedent and expressly stated that it had not examined the merits of the underlying dispute, leaving all contentions open for adjudication by the appellate authority.