This is a petition seeking review of order dated 04.05.2022 passed in W.P.No.4349/2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner herein had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 04.01.2022, without extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, said order dated 04.01.2022 was challenged before this Court by filing writ petition i.e. W.P.No.4349/2021.

Counsel further contends that the said writ petition was dismissed while holding that petitioner herein could not have claimed condonation of delay in filing an appeal on the strength of Circular dated 25.06.2020 inasmuch as, the said circular only dealt with Section 29 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 which provides for filing of application for revocation of cancellation of registration and not Section 107 of the Act, 2017 which pertains to provision regarding filing of an appeal.

Counsel further submits that it escaped attention of this Court that a specific ground 6.2 was taken in the memorandum of petition to the extent that the Appellate Authority did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the order was passed in violation of principle of natural Justice. Counsel contends that this ground has not been dealt with by this Court while dismissing the writ petition i.e. W.P.No.4349/2022 vide order dated 04.05.2022. Counsel while placing reliance upon the decision of the High Court of Madras in the case of Suguna Cutpiece Center vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) Salem and Erode Commercial Taxes and Another reported in 2022-TIOL-261-HC-MAD-GST submits that the impugned order deserves to be reviewed.

Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the review petitioner.

So far as the order dated 04.05.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4349/2022 is concerned, the petitioner does not dispute that in the said order there is no error but confines his arguments to the extent of non-consideration of ground mentioned in 6.2 which was asserted in the memorandum of the petition.

To deal with this contention of the petitioner, firstly it would be profitable to refer to order dated 04.01.2022 which is contained in Annexure P/2 with the writ petition. A perusal of the same reflects that the petitioner herein had submitted online appeal on 16.09.2019. The second paragraph of the order also reveals that in terms of the information which is available at web-portal, appeal was being dealt with and the Appellate Authority passed order dated 04.01.2022. The petitioner in the entire petition has nowhere stated that after filing of appeal on 16.09.2019, what were the next steps which were taken by the petitioner. The petition is also conspicuously silent about the fact that the petitioner ever demanded any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has also failed to bring on record the procedure which is laid down in web-portal of the respondents which is taken recourse to deal with the appeals. There are no averments in the petition as regards the procedure of hearing through online mode.

The petitioner nowhere asserted in the petition that he was not intimated about the hearing of matter on 04.01.2022 by the Appellate Authority. There are no averments in the entire petition to the effect that the date of fixing of the matter by the Appellate Authority on 04.01.2022, was given behind the back of the petitioner. It is also nowhere mentioned in the petition as to how the petitioner came to know about the order dated 04.01.2022. Even for the sake of assumption, if the argument of the petitioner is accepted, the absence of necessary pleadings in the petition, does not warrant review of the impugned order passed by this Court. The judgment as relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Suguna Cutpiece Center (supra), is distinguishable as the same does not deal with the question of violation of natural justice by an Appellate Authority or even filing of an appeal through online mode.

In view of the aforesaid, having found no substance, the present review petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.