Devendra Sah vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Devendra Sah, challenged an order dated 08.03.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Supaul Circle, Supaul, imposing tax, interest, and penalty for September 2018. The petitioner contended that the order was passed in violation of Section 73(8) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by not providing the statutory 30-day period for reply, and also violated the principles of natural justice as the order was passed before the due date for submission of the reply. The petitioner also challenged the consequential DRC-07 dated 08.03.2020 for Rs. 679425.38. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), State Taxes, Purnea Division, which rejected the petitioner's appeal ex-parte without a hearing.

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 for making the payment. The notice dated 11.02.2020 directed the petitioner to file a reply on 11.03.2020, but the final order was passed on 08.03.2020, which was within the 30-day period. This failure to provide the statutory period violated the mandate of law. Similarly, the appellate order was rejected ex-parte without considering the petitioner's contentions. Consequently, the Court quashed the notice dated 11.02.2020, the order of assessment dated 08.03.2020, and the appellate order dated 05.07.2021. The Court directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in light of the statutory provisions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and stipulated conditions for further proceedings, including deposit of amounts and expeditious decision by the assessing authority. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 08.03.2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Supaul Circle, Supaul, is liable to be set aside for violation of Section 73(8) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the principles of natural justice, by not affording the statutory 30-day period for reply and passing the order prematurely? 2. Whether the appellate order dated 05.07.2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), State Taxes, Purnea Division, is liable to be set aside for rejecting the petitioner's appeal ex-parte without providing an opportunity of hearing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to grant the mandatory 30 days' notice as stipulated under Section 73(8) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The notice dated 11.02.2020 directed a reply by 11.03.2020, but the final order was passed on 08.03.2020, which was within the 30-day period. This also constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellate order was also challenged for being passed ex-parte without hearing the petitioner. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and State of Bihar).