Juno Bitumix Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Juno Bitumix Private Limited, challenged an order dated 04.09.2020 by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna, which dismissed their appeal against an ex parte order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna. The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of delay in filing. The original orders were for the tax period March 2019 and were passed without service of notice under Section 46 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and the appellate order. The Union of India was impleaded as a party respondent. The court noted that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by COVID-19 restrictions.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned appellate order dated 04.09.2020, the original order dated 28.08.2019, and the Summary of Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.08.2019. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that 10% of the total amount, a condition for hearing the appeal, had already been deposited. If not, it was to be deposited before the next date. The petitioner was also directed to additionally deposit 10% of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks, without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the final order. Any excess deposit would be refunded. The Court directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Authority on 09.08.2021, and the Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with principles of natural justice, affording adequate opportunity to all parties, and passing a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during this period. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open. Proceedings during the pandemic were to be conducted digitally if possible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte orders dated 28.08.2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Patna, for the tax period March 2019, are liable to be quashed for non-service of notice under Section 46 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that these orders were passed without proper notice, violating principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the appellate order dated 04.09.2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna, is liable to be quashed for dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, especially when the delay was attributable to COVID-19 restrictions? The petitioner contended that the delay was sufficiently explained and the appellate authority should have considered the merits. The Revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for fresh decision on merits, with no coercive steps during pendency. The petitioner relied on the fact that 10% of the disputed amount was a prerequisite for appeal hearing and had been deposited.