The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing in quashing the impugned order and directing the appeal to be decided on merits.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):

I. For the issuance of a writ of certiorari and/or, any other appropriate writ/direction/order in the light of the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 3 of 2020 for quashing the non-speaking order passed vide Order dated 01.03.2021 bearing Reference no. ZD100321000129E by the Respondent No.2, wherein the appeal bearing acknowledgment no. AD100221001440E was rejected.

II. For the issuance of a writ of mandamus, and/or, any other appropriate writ/direction/order to ensure the grant of all consequential reliefs in the matter.

III. For providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and present its case/appeal before the Respondent No. 2 without re-submitting the pre-deposit amount as the same was deposited in the previous appeal which has not yet been returned to the petitioner.

IV. For staying the operation of Respondent No. 3/Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna South: Patna West, Bihar’s order dated 04.03.2020 and order/demand/communication dated 05.03.2020 bearing reference number ZA100320005146L (for the period-November 2018, GST No. 10AAFCA9593GIZO) passed under Section 74 of Bihar Goods and Service Act, 2017 until the pendency of the appeal.

V. For restraining the Branch Manager/officials of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, Exhibition Road Branch, Patna from initiating any coercive action in the form of recovery of GST dues/remittance of any money to the state tax department from the account of the petitioner, in terms of its letter 02.03.2021, until the pendency of the appeal or directing the Respondent No. 3 to return the amount to the petitioner deducted from the petitioner’s aforesaid account by Respondent no. 4 and deposited with Respondent no. 3, until the pendency of the appeal, if a coercive action is taken in terms of letter dated 02.03.2021 before the hearing of this case.

II. For providing any other relief that your good self may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.”

2. It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2, namely the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal/Appellate Authority), Patna West Division, Patna, Bihar in Appeal bearing acknowledgment no.AD100221001440E, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 04.03.2020 and order/demand/communication dated 05.03.2020 bearing reference number ZA100320005146L (for the period November 2018, GST No. 10AAFCA9593GIZO) passed by Respondent No.3, namely Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna South: Patna West, Bihar under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017; has been rejected by a non-speaking order.

3. In our considered view, the delay stands sufficiently explained on account of COVID restrictions.

4. Learned counsel for the Revenue, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. Also, while considering and deciding the appeal, the ground of delay shall not be taken into account and the appeal shall be decided on merits. Also, during pendency of the appeal, 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 p