Sanjay Karol, CJ.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

“(a) For issuance of writ or order in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the appellate order dated 13.01.2021 issued vide memo number 46 Patna passed by the respondent no. 2 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act 2017 for short) and Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar act 2017 for short), being ex-parte and as such violative of the principles of natural justice;

(b) For further issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the ex parte order dated 08.08.2019 and the summary of order issued in form GST DRC-07 dated 14.08.2019 passed and issued by the respondent no. 3 under section 73 of the central act 2017 and Bihar act 2017;

(c) For further restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of tax and interest and penalty in terms of the impugned orders during the pendency of the present writ application;

2. It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure 3) bearing Memo No. 46, passed by the Respondent No. 2, namely, the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Patna West, Patna, in Appeal No. (ARN) AD1011190008688, the appeal of the petitioner against the impugned order dated 08.08.2019, passed by Respondent No. 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna Central Circle, Patna (Annexure-1), in GSTIN 10AACCH5613D1ZD, under Section 73 of BGST Act, 2017; and summary of order dated 14.08.2019 in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period Apr 2018 to March, 2019 (Reference No. ZA100819000646P), 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.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

4. 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 13.01.2021 (Annexure 3) bearing Memo No. 46, passed by the Respondent No. 2, namely, the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Patna West, Patna, in Appeal No. (ARN) AD1011190008688, impugned order dated 08.08.2019, passed by Respondent No. 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna Central Circle, Patna (Annexure-1), in GSTIN 10AACCH5613D1ZD, under Section 73 of BGST Act, 2017; and summary of order dated 14.08.2019 in Form GST DRC-07 (Reference No. ZA100819000646P);

(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 the amount is not deposited for whatever reason(s), same shall be done before the next date;

(c) Further the petitioner undertakes to addit