The court emphasized the importance of complying with the principles of natural justice and ensuring fair opportunity of hearing, especially in ex parte orders.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Karol, C.J. - Our attention is invited to the Circular dated 11th of August, 2020, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (State Taxes-I Section), and Circular dated 27th of October, 2020, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Indirect taxes & Customs) Legal Cell, copy whereof is taken on record.

2. In view of the same, Union of India be impleaded as Party Respondent No. 4.

3. Registry to make necessary correction, both on the digital as also the hard file.

4. Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Anshuman Singh, Sr. S.C., CGST & CX enter appearance on behalf of the newly added respondents. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

"a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the acknowledgement contained in form GST APL - 02 dated 11 . 02. 2021 issued under rule 108 (3) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bihar Rules 2017") by the Respondent No. 2 whereby the well founded appeal of petitioner against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 3 has been rejected, on wholly erroneous grounds and without considering the case of the petitioner.

b) For issuance a further writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of ex-parte order dated 06.03.2020 and the summary of order issued in form GST DRC - 07 dated 06.03.2020 passed and issued by the Respondent No. 3 under section 74 (1) of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bihar Act 2017") read with rule 142 (5) of the Bihar Rules 2017;

c) For holding that the order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Respondent no 2 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of delay is bad in law considering the COVID 19 pandemic and the orders of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 5633 of 2020.

d) For holding and a declaration that the impugned order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the respondent No. 3 is highly cryptic, nonspeaking and based on complete non-application of mind to the credit balance in the electronic credit Ledger and the figures of taxable outward supplies admitted and disclosed in the returns for the period in question.

e) For issuance of a writ or order or direction restraining the Respondent No. 3 from making any coercive recovery of the amount in demand, tax, interest and penalty as contained in the order dated 06.03.2020 during the pendency of the present writ application.

f) For holding and a declaration that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 3 was well within limitation in light of the 4 orders dated 30.04.2020 and 18.05.2020 passed by full bench of this Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 5633 of 2020 in view of the pandemic having arisen out of Covid 19.

g) For grant of any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case."

5. It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 11th of February, 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Patna West, Division, Patna in Reference No. ZD1002210084862 (Annexure-6), the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 6th of March, 2020 passed by the Respondent No. 3 namely Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Buxar Circle, Buxar, in GSTIN-10AOFPR0913Q1ZW and Summary of Order dated 6th of March, 2020 in Reference No. ZA1003200078936 has been rejected merely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. Both the orders were ex parte in nature.

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

7. 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 pendency of the case, no coercive steps shall be taken again