The Court can intervene and set aside orders that violate principles of natural justice and are passed ex parte without sufficient reasons, even if a statutory remedy exists.

JUDGMENT :

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/Hon’ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)

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

“(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of the communication in the form GST APL-04 dated 18.08.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 2, whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the Order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the BGST Act, 2017) has been rejected and a summary received demand has been forwarded to the Petitioner.

ii. For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 21.01.2021 passed and issued by the Respondent No. 3, whereby duty demand of Rs. 6,36,335/ along with interest of Rs. 1,04,475/-has been demanded under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act, 2017) and penalty of Rs.6,36,335/-has been imposed under CGST Act, 2017 along with duty demand of Rs. 6,36,335/-and interest of Rs.1,04,475/-has been demanded under the BGST Act, 2017 and penalty of Rs.6,36,335/-has been imposed under BGST Act, 2017.

iii. For further restraining the respondents from making recovery of amount of tax, interest and penalty imposed and raised in terms of Order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the Respondent no. 3.

iv. For holding that the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 is cryptic, non -speaking and in teeth of Section 107 of the BGST Act, 2017.

v. For any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Purnea Division, Purnea in Appeal Case No. (ARN) AD10032100397IV, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the A.C.S.T., Saharsa Circle, Saharsa in Reference No. ZD100121018622C under Section 74 of BGST Act, 2017; has been rejected.

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. 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 18.08.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Purnea Division, Purnea in Appeal Case No. (ARN) AD10032100397IV and the order dated 21.01.2021 passed by the A.C.S.T., Saharsa Circle, Saharsa in Reference No. ZD100121018622C under Section 74 of BGST Act, 2017;

(b) We accept the statement of the petitioner that ten per cent of the total amount, being condition prerequi