Devendra Sah vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Sah, challenged an order dated March 8, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Supaul, for October 2018, imposing tax, interest, and penalty under Section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording the statutory 30-day period stipulated in Section 73(8) and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the reply submission deadline was March 11, 2020, but the order was issued on March 8, 2020. The petitioner also challenged the consequential DRC-07 for Rs. 272,412.80 and an appellate order dated July 5, 2021, by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Purnea, which rejected the appeal ex-parte. The High Court noted that the minimum statutory period of 30 days under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, was not afforded.

Held

The Court held that the statutory period of 30 days mandated under Section 74(A) of the CGST/BGST Act, 2017, was not afforded to the petitioner before the assessing officer proceeded to pass an ex-parte order. The notice dated February 11, 2020, directed the petitioner to file a reply by March 11, 2020, but the final order was passed on March 8, 2020, which was within the 30-day period. The Court also noted that the appellate order was rejected ex-parte without considering the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice dated February 11, 2020, the assessment order dated March 8, 2020, and the appellate order dated July 5, 2021. The Court directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in light of statutory provisions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and stipulated conditions for further deposits and expeditious disposal of the case. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated March 8, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Supaul, is liable to be set aside for violating the statutory 30-day period mandated under Section 73(8) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the appellate order dated July 5, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Purnea, is liable to be set aside for rejecting the petitioner's appeal ex-parte without providing a hearing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order dated March 8, 2020, was passed prematurely, within the 30-day period allowed for reply submission, thus violating Section 73(8) of the BGST Act and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further contended that the appellate order was passed ex-parte, denying them an opportunity to be heard. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.