Sudhir Kumar Jha @ Sudheer Kumar Jha vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sudhir Kumar Jha, challenged an undated order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Patna South Circle, Patna, under Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order imposed tax and interest for October 2019. The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 73(1) on January 5, 2021, provided only until January 22, 2021, for a reply, which is less than the mandatory 30 days required by law. The petitioner also challenged the consequential demand in DRC-07 dated February 10, 2021, passed based on the aforementioned order. The revenue department was represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities.

Held

The Court held that the notice dated January 5, 2021, which directed the petitioner to file a reply by January 22, 2021, did not afford the mandatory statutory period of 30 days as required under Section 73(8) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (and implicitly Section 74(A) as referred to in the judgment). This procedural lapse was found to be a violation of the mandate of law. Consequently, the Court quashed both the notice dated January 5, 2021, and the assessment order dated February 10, 2021. The Court directed the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in compliance with the statutory provisions and to pass an appropriate order thereafter. The petitioner undertook to appear before the Assessing Authority on March 28, 2022, and cooperate with the proceedings. The Assessing Authority was directed to take a decision within four weeks of the petitioner's appearance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 73(1) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, providing less than the mandatory 30 days for filing a reply, violates the principles of natural justice and statutory mandate? The petitioner argued that the notice dated January 5, 2021, which required a reply by January 22, 2021, failed to provide the statutory minimum of 30 days, thus violating Section 73(8) of the Act and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in CWJC No. 3374/2020. The revenue department, represented by Mr. Vikash Kumar, did not appear to contest this specific procedural ground, but later requested directions for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority.