Smt. Vinita Gupta vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner State Tax Cum Secretary

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned appellate order dated July 5, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The appeal was restored to its original file and number. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had been deposited. If not deposited, it was to be done before the next date. This deposit was to be without prejudice to the rights of the parties and subject to the final order. Any excess deposit was to be refunded within two months of the order. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on October 28, 2021, and the Appellate Authority was directed to condone any delay in filing the appeal and decide it on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice. Opportunity of hearing was to be afforded to the parties, and no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months, and a speaking order was to be provided. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.

Facts

The Petitioner, Smt. Vinita Gupta, challenged an order-cum-demand notice dated January 11, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Katihar-Purnea, under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, read with the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This order assessed a total liability of Rs. 9,21,659.86, comprising Rs. 4,31,690.80 as tax, Rs. 58,278.26 as interest, and Rs. 4,31,690.80 as penalty for the period October 2019 to March 2020. The Petitioner also challenged an ex parte appellate order dated July 5, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner State Tax (Appeal), Purnea Division, which rejected her appeal without considering the grounds or a time petition. The Petitioner sought to quash these orders and restrain recovery proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte appellate order dated July 5, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner State Tax (Appeal) is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice, as it rejected the petitioner's appeal without considering the grounds and a time petition filed by the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was passed ex parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as her appeal was rejected without a proper consideration of the grounds raised and the time petition filed. The petitioner sought a fresh hearing on merits. Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the Revenue stated that they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. They agreed that the ground of delay should not be taken into account and the appeal should be decided on merits. They also agreed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.