SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Sky Vision Media Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary cum Commissioner, Department of State Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21364 of 2021
Decided On : 04-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Prasad (GP 7).

The Court can interfere with an order if it violates principles of natural justice, and the Assessing Authority must decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned.

Headnote:

GST - Writ Petition - Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 73(1) - Rule 142(5) - Form GST DRC-07 - Violation of principles of natural justice - Ex parte order - Quashing of order - Deposit of ten per cent of demand - De-freezing of bank account - Fresh order on merits - No coercive steps during pendency of case - Liberty reserved to challenge order - Proceedings through digital mode

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the quashing of an ex-parte order and summary of order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, North Circle, Patna under Section 73(1) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, raising a demand of Rs.34,32,721.00 for the tax period 2019-20. The petitioner alleged violation of principles of natural justice and sought relief from coercive recovery during the pendency of the writ application.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice and was passed without assigning sufficient reasons. The Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit ten per cent of the demand, de-freezing the bank account, and instructing the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned.

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, validity of ex-parte order, relief from coercive recovery, and the need for a fresh order on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court can interfere with an order if it violates principles of natural justice and is ex-parte in nature. The petitioner must deposit ten per cent of the demand, and the Assessing Authority must decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the petitioner was directed to deposit ten per cent of the demand. The bank account was to be de-frozen, and the Assessing Authority was instructed to decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned. No coercive steps were to be taken during the pendency of the case, and the parties were given liberty to challenge the order and take recourse to other remedies.

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 ex-parte order dated 08.02.2021 and summary of order in form GST DRC 07 dated 08.02.2021 under rule 142 (5) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bihar rules 2017 for short) passed and issued by the respondent number 3 under section 73 (1) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 hereinafter referred to as the "Bihar act 2017" for short);

(b) For holding and a declaration that the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the respondent No. 3 is highly cryptic, misconceived, non-speaking and violative of principles of natural Justice.

(c) 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 and penalty) as contained in the order dated 08.02.2021 during pendency of the present writ application:

(d) 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 08.02.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 3 namely the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, North Circle, Patna in GSTIN 10AARCS6890G1Z0, under Section 73(I) of BGST Act, 2017 and summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 08.02.2021, for the tax period 2019-20, a demand of Rs.34,32,721.00 has been raised.

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 08.02.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 3 namely the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, North Circle, Patna in GSTIN 10AARCS6890G1Z0, under Section 73(I) of BGST Act, 2017 and summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 08.02.2021;

(b) The petitioner undertakes to deposit ten per cent of the amount of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer. This shall be done within four weeks.

(c) This deposit shall be without prejudice to the respective rights and contention of the parties and subject to the order passed by the Assessing Officer. However, if it is ultimately found that the petitioner’s deposit is in excess, the same shall be refunded within two months from the date of passing of the order;

(d) We also direct for de-freezing/de-attaching of the bank account(s) of the writ-petitioner, if attached in reference to the proceedings, subject matter of present petition. This shall be done immediately.

(e) Petitioner undertakes to appear before the Assessing Authority on 28.01.2022 at 10:30 A.M., if possible through digital mode;

(f) The Assessing Authority shall decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice;

(g) Opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the parties to place

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top