Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
M/s AST Telecom Solar Pvt. Ltd – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9136 of 2022
Decided on : 14-07-2022
BGST Act - Quashing of orders under section 73 and Rule 117 - 73, 140, 142(5), 113(1), 115 of BGST Act and Rules - The court quashed the orders passed under section 73 and Rule 117 of the BGST Act, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice and lack of sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of various orders related to the rejection of their claim under section 140 of BGST Act and the imposition of taxes, interest, and penalties. The appeal against the orders was also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the orders were bad in law due to the violation of principles of natural justice and the lack of sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, ex parte order, determination of amount due and payable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it was not precluded from interfering where it formed an opinion that the order was bad in law, especially due to the violation of principles of natural justice and the lack of sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders, directed the petitioner to deposit a certain amount, and instructed the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
B) For Quashing of DRC-07 dated 19.06.2019 issued by respondent no.4 under Rule-142(5) of BGST Rules whereby and under a demand of tax including interest and penalty of an amount of Rs.3,60,30,129/- was made from the petitioner.
C) For Quashing of order dated 24.03.2022 whereby and where under appeal bearing Appeal No.AD100719000172P filed by petitioner against order dated 19.06.2019 was dismissed without appreciating the grounds taken by the petitioner before the appellate authorities.
D) For Quashing of Demand Notice dated 25.03.2022 in the Form of GST APL 04 issued under Rule 113(1) and 115 of BGST Rules, the Appellate authority determined a tax, interest and penalty amount of Rs.2,60,14,534, 1,99,01,118 and Rs.26,01,453/-.
E) For 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 24.03.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 6, namely the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), SGST, Patna, Central Division, Patna in Case No.AD100719000172P, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by Respondent No. 4, namely The Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna Special Circle, under Sections 73 of BGST Act, 2017; and summary of order dated 19.06.2019 in Form GST DRC-07 for the period 1.7.2017 to 31.03.2018, has been rejected.
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 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.
5. Statement accepted and taken on record.
6. 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.
7. As such, on this short ground alone, we dispose of the present writ petition in the following mutually agreeable terms:
The violation of principles of natural justice and the lack of sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee can lead to the quashing of orders.
The court can interfere if the order is bad in law, especially in cases of violation of natural justice and lack of sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable.
Courts can interfere with orders that are bad in law, especially in cases of violation of natural justice and ex-parte orders.
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.
The court can interfere where the order is bad in law, violation of principles of natural justice, and ex parte order without assigning reasons.
Courts may interfere with orders, notwithstanding statutory remedies, in cases of violation of principles of natural justice and ex parte orders.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
