GST appellate authorities must issue reasoned orders even when appellants fail to appear.

The petitioner challenged an appellate order dismissing its appeal against a tax demand of ₹2,86,521 for FY 2021–22.

The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) dismissed the appeal after the petitioner failed to appear, stating that it had considered the grounds of appeal and available records but found no reason to interfere with the original order.

The petitioner sought certiorari, contending that dismissal for non-appearance denied it a fair hearing.

The petitioner relied on Bondada Engineering Limited v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No. 26900 of 2024, where the appellate order had been set aside and the matter remanded.

1. Whether the appellate authority’s dismissal of the petitioner’s statutory appeal following non-appearance complied with the requirements of Section 107(12) of the KGST Act, 2017.

2. Whether the appeal should be remanded to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

Section 107(12) of the KGST Act, 2017 requires an appellate order disposing of an appeal to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision on those points, and the reasons for that decision.

The Court also directed compliance with Section 107(11) when reconsidering the appeal.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem, and treated the statutory appeal as a substantial right.

It relied on Bondada Engineering Limited v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, in which an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution was remitted for reconsideration to provide a further opportunity to prosecute it on the merits.

Although the appellate authority stated that it had considered the appeal grounds and available material, the Court found that the impugned order did not satisfy Section 107(12), because it lacked the required points for determination, decisions, and reasons.

Given that the appeal had been dismissed following the petitioner’s non-appearance, the Court considered it appropriate to provide a reasonable opportunity to present the case, consistent with natural justice and the approach adopted in Bondada Engineering.

It remanded the matter to the appellate authority to give the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and decide the appeal in accordance with Sections 107(11) and 107(12) of the KGST Act.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the authority on 12 October 2026, and the authority was requested to dispose of the appeal within two months of the first appearance.

All rival contentions were left open.