M/S Amit Books vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition in part. It held that the petitioner had not been provided with an ample opportunity of defending their case before the adjudicating authority. Relying on the co-ordinate bench decisions cited by the petitioner, which were not disputed by the respondents, the Court found merit in the petitioner's grievance regarding the denial of a proper hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the orders dated 23.12.2023 (show cause notice), 20.04.2024 (DRC-07 order), and 04.09.2024 (appeal order). The adjudicating authority, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Kadamkuan Circle, Patna, was directed to issue a fresh show cause notice, seek the petitioner's explanation, provide a personal hearing, and decide the matter afresh within six months from the date of receipt of the order. The ratio decidendi is that a fair opportunity of hearing is a fundamental procedural requirement in tax adjudication, and its denial vitiates the proceedings.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Amit Books, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 23/12/2023, a reminder notice dated 10/01/2024, and an order in Form DRC-07 dated 20/04/2024, all issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Kadamkuan Circle, Patna. These notices and the order pertained to tax, interest, and penalty under Section 73(9) of the GST Act for the period 2018-19. The petitioner also challenged an appeal order dated 04/09/2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna Eastern Division, Patna. The core grievance of the petitioner was that they were not provided with an ample opportunity to defend their case before the adjudicating authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity of being heard before the adjudicating authority, as required under the GST Act? 2. Whether the show cause notice, DRC-07 order, and the subsequent appeal order are liable to be quashed on the grounds of procedural irregularity, specifically the denial of a proper opportunity to defend? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they were not provided with sufficient opportunity to defend their case before the adjudicating authority. They relied on several co-ordinate bench decisions of the Patna High Court, including M/s Barhonia Engicon Private Limited Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors (CWJC No. 4180 of 2024), M/s S.P. Singla Constructions Pvt. Ltd Vs. Union of India (CWJC No. 15748 of 2024), and Shree Ram Sales LLP Vs. the State of Bihar (CWJC No. 2768 of 2025), to support their claim that such procedural lapses warrant setting aside the impugned orders. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents were not disputed regarding the petitioner's submission on the lack of opportunity.