Kaushal Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ application in terms similar to the operative part of the judgment in CWJC No. 14554 of 2024. This means the petitioner is to deposit 10 percent of the amount of tax in dispute, in addition to any amount already deposited under Section 107(6) of the BGST Act. Upon such deposit, the petitioner will be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Section 112(9) of the BGST Act, with recovery of the balance amount and any steps taken stayed. This relief is granted due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal. The petitioner is required to file an appeal under Section 112 of the BGST Act once the Tribunal is constituted and functional. If the petitioner does not avail this remedy within the specified period after the Tribunal's constitution, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. If the conditions are complied with, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account pursuant to the demand shall be released. The Court noted the agreement of both parties that the issues could be agitated before the Tribunal when constituted.

Facts

The petitioner, Kaushal Kumar, filed a writ application challenging summary assessment orders dated January 24, 2020, and February 19, 2020, passed by Respondent No. 6 (Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Saharsa Circle) for the period April 2019 to September 2019. These orders imposed an ex-parte total liability of Rs. 24,17,040/- (CGST Rs. 11,27,005/- with interest Rs. 81,515/-, and SGST Rs. 11,27,005/- with interest Rs. 81,515/-). The petitioner also challenged the demand order in Form DRC-07 dated February 19, 2020, and an appellate order dated July 15, 2021, passed by Respondent No. 5 (Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Purnia Division), which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground that a payment certificate was not signed by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and directions for a fresh assessment considering his annual assessment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summary assessment orders dated January 24, 2020, and February 19, 2020, and the demand order in Form DRC-07 dated February 19, 2020, passed ex-parte for the period April 2019 to September 2019, are illegal and liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, potentially concerning principles of natural justice and proper assessment procedures under GST law). 2. Whether the appellate order dated July 15, 2021, dismissing the petitioner's appeal based on a technicality regarding the signatory of a payment certificate, is erroneous and liable to be set aside? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of evidence and procedural fairness in appeals under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessment orders and demand were passed illegally without examining records and supporting materials. The appellate order was also erroneous for dismissing the appeal on a technical ground regarding the payment certificate. Revenue's arguments: The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, submitted that the writ application could be disposed of in terms similar to a previous co-ordinate bench judgment in CWJC No. 14554 of 2024 (M/s Maa Sunaina Construction Private Limited Vs. The Union of India and Others). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the merits of the petitioner's claims.