M/S Jai Mata Di Tour And Travels vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the appellate order dated 15.09.2022, the ex parte order dated 09.12.2021, and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07. The Court found the original order to be bad in law for two primary reasons: (a) violation of principles of natural justice due to insufficient opportunity of hearing, and (b) the ex parte order lacked sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due. The Court noted that all issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even in ex parte proceedings. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the total demand additionally within four weeks, without prejudice to their rights. The Court also directed de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The Assessing Authority was mandated to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within two months, after complying with principles of natural justice and affording adequate opportunity to all parties, passing a speaking order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits, leaving all issues open.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jai Mata Di Tour and Travels, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Patna Division (East). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an ex parte order dated 09.12.2021 and a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, both passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Kadam Kuan Circle, Patna. The appeal was rejected solely on the technical ground of limitation. The ex parte order by the Assistant Commissioner was for the tax period 2020-2021. The petitioner sought to quash both the appellate order and the original ex parte order, and to restrain coercive recovery of the demand during the pendency of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dated 15.09.2022, rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation, is sustainable in law, particularly when the original order dated 09.12.2021 was passed ex parte and allegedly in violation of principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the original order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was ex parte and lacked sufficient reasons, failing to assign how the amount due was determined. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that insufficient time was provided for representation, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority's rejection of the appeal on technical grounds of limitation, without considering these substantive issues, was therefore challenged. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue, through the learned counsel for the State, stated that they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for fresh decision on merits, and that limitation would not be a bar. They also agreed that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.