SANJAY KAROL, CJ.:–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

(A) For quashing of order dated 19.06.2019 passed under section 73 of BGST Act 2017 by Respondent no. 5, whereby and whereunder the claim of petitioner of Rs. 32,29,195/- against State /UT Tax Credit carry forward in TRAN -1 under Rule 140(1) of BGST Act, 2017 has been rejected and the said order is an ex-parte order passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(B) For quashing of demand notice in the Form of QST DRC 07 bearing Reference No. ZA1006I9000526X dated 19.06.2019 whereby and where under a demand of Rs, 43,75,560/- was made as tax, interest, penalty imposed vide order dated 19.06.2019 against the rejection of SGST TRAN-1 claim of the petitioner.

(C) For quashing of order dated 5.12.2020 passed by Respondent no. 6 in Appeal Case No. AD 100819000188A (dated 01.07.2017 to 31.03.2018) whereby and where under the appellate authority has upheld the order dated 19.06.2019 after dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(D) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to the show cause as to why the petitioner being the registered dealer within the meaning and ambit of Value Added Tax Act 2005 and Goods & Service Tax Act 2017, is not being allowed the Input Tax Credit against entry tax amount of Rs. 32,29,195/- available to it as on 27.12.2017.

(E) For issuance of appropriate writ, order and direction including directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to refund of the credit available to it as on 27.12.2017, which has not been allowed it due to technical reason and a direction may be issued to considered the claim of Rs. 32,29,195/- as mentioned in TRAN- 1 as input tax credit,

(F) Tor issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order (s) or direction (s) as your lordship may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for doing justice.

3. It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 6, namely, Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Central Division, Patna in Appeal Case No. AD100819000188A, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 5, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (GST) Special Circle, Gandhi Maidan, Patna and demand notice dated 19.06.2019 in Form GST DRC 07, has been rejected. The orders appeared to be ex parte in nature.

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 pendency of the case, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.

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 reasons sufficient 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 05.12.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 6, namely, Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Central Division, Patna in Appeal Case No. AD100819000188A, order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Respondent No. 5, namely, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (GST) Specia