The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.11.2019, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without hearing the counsel for the appellant.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a trader/seller of Bidi and had purchased the Bidi from M/s J.P. Tobacco Products Private Limited against Tax invoice and E-way bill dated 5.2.2019. The petitioner claims to have sold the said Bidi to 9 different registered dealers against 9 Tax invoices, all dated 9.2.2019, wherein the value of each Tax invoices was less than 50,000/-. The goods in question were intercepted on 9.2.2019 and a detention order dated 11.2.2019 was passed merely on the ground that the goods were not accompanied by the relevant E-way bills. The ground of the petitioner was 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, however, the contention of the petitioner was not accepted and an order dated 25.2.2019 was passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act.

Aggrieved against the said order, 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 to press the appeal and it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeal. The said Appellate Authority accordingly dismissed the appeal vide order dated 16.11.2019, which is under challenge in the present proceedings.

In pursuance to the said order dated 16.11.2019, a demand notice has also been issued on 24.7.2020.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the counsel for the petitioner Sri Vipin Kumar 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. It is on that account that the counsel for the petitioner could not appear to argue and press the appeal.

A perusal of the appellate order shows that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal in the absence of the counsel for the appellant. There is no reasons not to believe the version of the counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the counsel for the appellant could not appear on account of his suffering from high fever and no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the order dated 16.11.2019 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.

To avoid any delays, it is directed that the counsel for the appellant shall appear before the Tribunal on 10th December, 2020 and thereafter the Appellate Authority shall take a decision and decide the appeal on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date 10th December, 2020.

The writ petition is disposed off in terms of the said order.