M/S Pramod Khad Bhandar vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated March 5, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Sasaram Circle. The petitioner also sought the de-attachment of their bank accounts, which had been attached post the impugned order. The revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner confined their relief to specific prayer clauses and reserved liberty to press other prayers later. The court noted that the impugned order was passed ex parte and without sufficient reasons, violating principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated March 5, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Sasaram Circle, was bad in law due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and sufficient time to represent their case. Furthermore, the ex parte order did not provide sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. The Court also directed the de-freezing/de-attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the total amount demanded, in addition to the 10% already deposited, within four weeks. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, including the petitioner, and to decide the matter on merits 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 and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 5, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Sasaram Circle, under Section 73 of the State Act, is bad in law due to violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient time afforded to the petitioner to represent their case? 2. Whether the ex parte order, which allegedly does not assign sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee, warrants interference by the High Court despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and sufficient time to present their case. They also contended that the ex parte order lacked sufficient reasoning for the demand raised. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner had an equally alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.