Sanjay Karol, CJ.: – Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): –

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of Appeal passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Division, Patna (Annexure-3) to this Writ Application) under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 read with rule 108(3) Goods and Services Rules, 2017 whereby the petitioner’s Appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of Assessment passed by Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Division, Patna, (Annexure-2 to this Writ Application) under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Act, 2017, Whereby the petitioner’s has been assessed ex-parte in Violation of the Principal of Natural Justice.

(iii) To issue direction to the authorities concern not to realize the amount from the HDFC bank account (Exhibition Road, Branch) located at Exhibition Road, Patna which has been seized in pursuance of the order of Assessment passed under section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Act, 2017.

(iv) To grant any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 17.03.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 namely the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Division, Patna, in Case No. ARN AD10022000793W, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by Respondent No. 4, namely The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Division, Patna under Section 73 of BGST Act, 2017; has been rejected on the ground of the same being barred by limitation.

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 and the limitation shall not be allowed to come in the way. 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.

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 17.03.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 namely the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Division, Patna, in Case No. ARN AD10022000793W, and the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by Respondent No. 4, namely The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Division, Patna;

(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 additionally deposit ten per cent of the amount of the demand raised