Kaushal Kumar vs. The State Of Biahr Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary

Held

The Court disposed of the writ application in terms similar to the operative part of the judgment in CWJC No. 14554 of 2024 (M/s Maa Sunaina Construction Private Limited Vs. The Union of India and Others), dated October 21, 2024. This means the petitioner is to deposit 10 percent of the disputed tax amount, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act, to avail the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the B.G.S.T. Act, due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. Recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken will be stayed. The petitioner must file an appeal before the Tribunal once it is constituted and functional, observing statutory requirements. If the petitioner fails to file an appeal within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed. If the conditions are complied with, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account will be released. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment orders or the appellate order.

Facts

The petitioner, Kaushal Kumar, filed a writ application challenging summary assessment orders dated January 24, 2020, and February 19, 2020, and a demand order in Form DRC-07 dated February 19, 2020, passed by Respondent No. 6. These orders imposed a total liability of Rs. 84,644.00 (CGST Rs. 48,142/- with interest Rs. 9,180/- and SGST Rs. 18,142/- with interest Rs. 9,180/-) for the period October 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner also challenged an appellate order dated July 15, 2021, passed by Respondent No. 5, which dismissed his appeal. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment considering his annual assessment. The respondents, represented by Mr. Vikash Kumar, agreed to dispose of the matter in terms similar to a previous co-ordinate bench judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte summary assessment orders and demand notices dated January 24, 2020, February 19, 2020, and February 19, 2020, respectively, passed by Respondent No. 6 for the period October 2018 to March 2019, imposing a total liability of Rs. 84,644.00, are legally sustainable, particularly in light of the petitioner's grievance that they were passed without proper examination of records and supporting materials, including Form 26AS and annual assessment filings. 2. Whether the appellate order dated July 15, 2021, passed by Respondent No. 5, dismissing the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the payment certificate produced was not signed by the Executive Engineer, while ignoring Form 26AS, is erroneous and liable to be set aside. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment orders and demand notices were passed illegally without examining the records and supporting materials. He also contended that the appellate order was erroneous for ignoring Form 26AS and dismissing the appeal on a technicality regarding the signature on a payment certificate. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents, through learned Standing Counsel-11, agreed to dispose of the writ application in terms similar to a previous judgment of a co-ordinate bench in CWJC No. 14554 of 2024.