The central legal point established in the judgment is that courts can interfere with orders that are bad in law, especially those involving violation of principles of natural justice and non-speaking orders.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

“(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 24.09.2021 and summary of demand issued in form GST APL-04 dated 25.09.2021 by the respondent number 2 under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bihar Act 2017" for short).

(b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 06.03.2021 and summary of order issued in form GST DRC-07 dated 06.03.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 under Section 73 of the Bihar Act 2017 for being in teeth of the principles of natural justice.

(c) For holding and a declaration that both the impugned orders dated 06.03.2021 and the order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the respondent No.3 and 2 are highly cryptic, misconceived, nonspeaking and violative of principles of natural justice and as such unsustainable in the eye of law.

(d) 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 06.03.2021 during the pendency of the present writ application.

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

2. It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Purnea Division, Purnea, in Appeal No. (ARN) AD1006210002518, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 06.03.201 passed by Respondent No. 3, namely the A.C.S.T., Purnea in GSTIN 10AFAPM4257Q1ZC, under Section 73 of BGST Act, 2017; and summary of order dated 06.03.2021 in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period 2019-2020, has been rejected by a cryptic, misconceived and non-speaking order.

3. 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 against the petitioner.

4. Statement accepted and taken on record.

5. However, having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record made available, we are of the considered view that this Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, for two reasons-(a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences; (c) We also find the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were ex parte in nature.

6. As such, on this short ground alone, we dispose of the present writ petition in the following mutually agreeable terms :

(a) We quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Purnea Division, Purnea, in Appeal No. (ARN) AD1006210002518, the order dated 06.03.201 passed by Respondent No. 3, namely the A.C.S.T., Purnea in GSTIN 10AFAPM4257Q1ZC, under Section 73 of BGST Act, 2017; and summary of order dated 06.03.2021 in Form GST DRC-07;

(b) We accept the statement of the petitioner that ten per cent of the total amount, being condition prerequisite for hearing of the appeal, already stands deposited. If that were so, well and good. However, if