Hav Automobiles PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The petitioner, HAV Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., sought to withdraw the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same and subsequent cause of action. The Court granted this liberty. Consequently, the present petition was disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner to mention the matter for early listing. Any interlocutory applications filed in the petition were also disposed of.

Facts

HAV Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna Central Circle (the respondent number 2). The order was passed under Section 75(12) read with Section 50(2) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash this order, arguing it was ex-parte, without jurisdiction, and unsustainable in law. The petitioner contended that the jurisdictional facts necessary for the exercise of power under Section 50 read with Section 75(12) were absent. The petitioner also relied on a judgment from the Madras High Court in Refex Industries Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent number 2 under Section 75(12) read with Section 50(2) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, is ex-parte and violative of the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law? 3. Whether, in the absence of jurisdictional facts, the respondent assessing authority could have passed the impugned order and the consequential demand notice? 4. Whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Madras High Court in Refex Industries Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, holding that interest under Section 50 is attracted only when tax liability is discharged from out of the cash ledger? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was ex-parte and violated natural justice. They contended that the jurisdictional facts for exercising power under Section 50 read with Section 75(12) were absent, rendering the order and demand notice without jurisdiction. The petitioner further argued that no interest liability would arise if their admitted tax liabilities, filed in returns, were covered by the surplus balance in their electronic credit ledger, citing the Madras High Court's decision in Refex Industries Limited. They also argued that if returns were furnished and tax paid as per Section 39(7), no interest under Section 75(12) would be attracted. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent State.