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

Held

The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition under instructions from their counsel. The reason for withdrawal was that the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent had electronically transmitted certain documents to the petitioner's counsel. While the judgment does not detail the content of these documents or the specific reason for the change in the petitioner's stance, it is evident that the petitioner wished to pursue a different course of action based on the information received. The Court granted the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition, reserving liberty to file a fresh petition on the same and subsequent cause of action. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn with the liberty granted. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to mention the matter for early listing. Any interlocutory applications filed were also disposed of.

Facts

HAV Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated February 25, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (respondent number 2) under Section 75(12) read with Section 50(2) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the consequential demand notice/summary of order issued in form GST DRC-07 dated February 29, 2020. The petitioner argued that these orders were ex-parte and violative of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and unsustainable in law. The petitioner contended that the jurisdictional facts necessary for exercising power under Section 50 read with Section 75(12) were absent. The petitioner 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 order number 19321 dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes under Section 75(12) read with Section 50(2) of the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017, and the consequential demand notice/summary of order issued in form GST DRC-07 dated 29.02.2020, are ex-parte and violative of the principles of natural justice? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, as they were passed without proper notice or opportunity to be heard). 2. Whether the impugned order and demand notice are without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law, particularly in the absence of jurisdictional facts necessary for exercising power under Section 50 read with Section 75(12) of the Act? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, the assessing authority lacked the necessary jurisdictional facts to pass the order). 3. Whether the liability of interest under Section 50 of the Act is attracted only in cases where tax liability is discharged from out of the cash ledger, and if the credit balance in the electronic credit ledger is sufficient to meet admitted tax liabilities, no interest liability would be attracted? (Petitioner's contention: Yes, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Refex Industries Limited Vs. Asst. Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise). 4. Whether, in cases where returns are furnished and tax liabilities are paid in terms of Section 39(7) of the Act, no liability of interest would be attracted in terms of Section 75(12) of the Act? (Petitioner's contention: Yes). The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.