M/S Prakah Sinha vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prakah Sinha Proprietor Prakash Vigyapan Paper Office Campus, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking to quash several orders. These included an order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner State Taxes (Appeals), Muzaffarpur, an order dated 29.01.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Muzaffarpur, and a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 25.02.2020. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions and that the certified copy of the Assessing Officer's order was placed on record during the appeal proceedings. The court considered the Apex Court's decision in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 regarding the extension of limitation.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner State Taxes, Western Block, Tirhut Division (Appeal), Muzaffarpur. The appeal was restored to its original file and number. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total disputed amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had been deposited. If this deposit was indeed made, the appeal would be decided on its merits. If not, it was to be deposited before the next date. This deposit was to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the final order of the Appellate Authority. Any excess deposit was to be refunded within two months of the order. The petitioner undertook to appear before the Appellate Authority on 8th March 2022, and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording opportunities for placing documents, and without taking coercive steps during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within two months from the petitioner's appearance. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Commissioner State Taxes was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions, thereby warranting condonation? The petitioner argued that the delay was attributable to the prevailing COVID-19 restrictions, which were recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, and therefore, the appeal should be heard on merits. The revenue did not appear to have raised a specific contention against this argument in the judgment, but the court's disposal implies consideration of the delay. 2. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner State Taxes are liable to be quashed and set aside? The petitioner sought to quash these orders, implying a challenge to their validity and the proceedings that led to them. The court's ultimate decision to set aside the appellate order and restore the appeal suggests that the petitioner's challenge to the appellate order was at least partially successful, leading to a re-examination of the merits.