Juno Bitumix Private Limited vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Juno Bitumix Private Limited, challenged orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 3) for the tax period June 2019. These orders, dated 28.09.2019 and 28.08.2019 (in Form GST DRC-07), were passed ex parte without service of notice under Section 46 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's appeal against these orders before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) (Respondent No. 2) was dismissed on 04.09.2020 solely on the grounds of delay in filing. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and the appellate order. The Union of India was impleaded as Respondent No. 4.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) and the orders dated 28.08.2019 and 28.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. The Court accepted that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID restrictions. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was directed to deposit ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks, which would be without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the final order. The Court also directed de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within two months from the petitioner's appearance, and no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte orders dated 28.09.2019 and 28.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 62 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed for want of service of notice under Section 46 of the BGST Act? 2. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) was rightly dismissed on the ground of delay, considering the prevailing COVID-19 restrictions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner were ex parte and passed without issuing the mandatory notice under Section 46 of the BGST Act, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the Revenue stated they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits.