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) 1203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJAY KAROL, S. KUMAR, JJ.
Sky Vision Media Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21364 of 2021
Decided on : 04-01-2022

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

The Court can interfere with an order if it violates principles of natural justice and is ex parte in nature without assigning sufficient reasons, as such orders entail civil consequences.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 73(1) - Rule 142(5) of Bihar Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017 - Form GST DRC-07 - Summary of order - Violation of principles of natural justice, ex parte order, insufficient reasons - Quashing of order, deposit requirement, de-freezing of bank account, fresh order, liberty to challenge

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the quashing of an ex-parte order and summary of order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, North Circle, Patna under Section 73(1) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, for a demand of Rs.34,32,721.00. The petitioner alleged that the order was highly cryptic, misconceived, nonspeaking, and violative of principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the order violated principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not afforded sufficient time to represent their case, and the ex parte order did not provide sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee. The Court disposed of the petition by quashing the impugned order, requiring the petitioner to deposit ten per cent of the demand, de-freezing the bank account, and directing the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned.

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, ex parte order, sufficiency of reasons, coercive recovery during pendency of the case

Ratio Decidendi: The Court can interfere with an order if it violates principles of natural justice and is ex parte in nature without assigning sufficient reasons. The order, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences.

Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was required to deposit ten per cent of the demand. The Court directed the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, de-freeze the bank account, and conduct proceedings through digital mode during the pandemic.

JUDGMENT :

(The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/Hon’ble Judges through Video Conferencing from their residential offices/residences. Also the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residences/offices.)

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, nonspeaking 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 Asses

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