The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and affording sufficient time for parties to represent their case, especially in matters concerning tax liability and Input Tax Credit.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, C.J. - Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

a. for issuing writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.03.2020 Summary of Order (demand order issued in FORM GST DRC 07) dated 13.03.2020 issued for the tax period March 2019 wherein a demand of tax of Rs.22,53,341.00/-, interest of Rs.120,013/- and penalty of Rs.2,25,333/- totalling to Rs.25,98,687/- for IGST, CGST and SGST has been levied against the petitioner.

b. For issuing writ/writs, order/orders including the writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority wherein the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed only on the ground of limitation in COVID 19 period ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically directed that limitation all the laws has to be ignored during the COVID Period.

c. For issuing writ/writs, order/orders including the writ of certiorari for quashing the demand order/summary of order of appellate authority passed in form GST APL 04 dated 26.02.2021 wherein a demand of tax of Rs.22,53,341.00/-, interest of Rs.120,013/- and penalty of Rs.2,25,000/- totalling to Rs.25,98,687/- for IGST, CGST and SGST has been confirmed against the Petitioner.

d. For issuing writ/writs, order/orders including the writ of mandamus after remanding the case back to the assessing authority and directing him/her to assess the liability of the Petitioner afresh after considering the submissions and merits of the case.

e. For reading down section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act in a manner which this court deems fit in order to enable the petitioner to claim its rightful imput tax credit given the fact tht the petitioner has filed its GST returns under section 39 of the act after the stipulated time period.

f. For holding that the petitioner who failed to file return claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the period March 2019 within the prescribed period of Section 16 of GST Act cannot be deprived of its genuine claim to avail Input on the purchase made by it during the aforesaid period specially when the time limit to file the return were extended by the Respondents themselves.

g. For issuing appropriate direction to Respondents No. 1 to 3 to issue appropriate notification and thereby creating provision for extension in availment of Input Tax Credit u/s 16 of GST Act as and when extension is granted for filling of GST Returns in Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.

h. For holding that the imposition of liability of tax, interest and penalty on Petitioner by the Respondent is illegal and void.

i. For holding that the Respondents cannot impose any liability of interest as well as tax on the petitioner when there has been no loss of revenue to the state.

j. For directing the Respondents not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner until the Pendency of the proceedings.

k. For refund of any amount which has been recovered through bank attachment/special mode of recovery during the pendency of this writ application.

l. To pass any other order/orders which it may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and within the ends of equity, justice and good conscience.

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Respondent No.8, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhagalpur, the summary of demand dated 26.02.2021 passed in form GST APL-04, in Reference No. ZA1003200159439 and the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 7 namely the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Bhagalpur Division, in Appeal Case No. BH/GST34/2020-21, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected merely on the grounds of being barred by limitation.

3. In our considered view, the delay stands sufficiently explained on account of COVID restrictions.

4. Learned counsel for the Revenue, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh. Also, the case shall be decided on merits. Also, during p