Sharda Construction A Partnership Firm vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Sharda Construction, challenged an appellate order dated 22.09.2022, which dismissed their appeal against an assessment order for the year 2019-20 on the grounds of non-prosecution. Subsequently, the Assessing Authority issued a notice dated 22.12.2022 under Section 79(1)(c) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, attaching the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner's primary contention was that the assessment notice (Annexure-1 series) was not signed by the State Tax Authority. The petitioner did not dispute receiving the notice. An order quantifying tax, interest, and penalty (Annexure-2) was also received, against which the appeal was filed. The respondents had not raised the issue of the unsigned assessment notice before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority. The appellate order (Annexure-3) was passed because the petitioner failed to appear on five occasions.

Held

The Court held that the absence of a signature on the assessment notice did not prejudice the petitioner or their opportunity for hearing before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority. The Court found no reason to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 based on this specific allegation. The petitioner had consistently failed to appear before the Appellate Authority, leading to the dismissal of their appeal on the grounds of non-prosecution. The Court was not inclined to grant the petitioner's request for a stay of recovery proceedings, particularly in light of their failure to appear before the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petition was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment notice issued to the petitioner was invalid due to the absence of a signature from the State Tax Authority, thereby vitiating subsequent proceedings? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the assessment notice was not signed by the State Tax Authority, which they argued rendered the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid. They did not dispute receiving the notice. Revenue's Argument: The revenue did not explicitly argue this point in the judgment. However, the Court noted that this contention was not raised by the respondents before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority. The Court also observed that the absence of a signature did not prejudice the petitioner's opportunity for hearing.