Madhuri Bajpayee vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Madhuri Bajpayee, proprietor of M/s Madhuri Steel, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle. The petitioner also sought to quash show cause notices dated 28.02.2022 and demand notices dated 28.02.2022 issued by the Joint Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle, respectively. The show cause notices pertained to the tax periods April 2020-March 2021 and April 2021-October 2021, alleging tax evasion. The demand notices levied a total demand of Rs. 4,75,03,787.90 for these periods. The petitioner sought directions to consider their reply to the show cause notice, to produce materials forming the basis for inspection/search/seizure under Section 67 of the GST Act, and to stay the operation of the impugned order and demand.
Held
The High Court observed that the petitioner has equally efficacious alternative remedies available under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, especially since the petitioner contended disputed questions of fact. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue such remedies as are available under the law. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the facts or the law. The revenue's counsel, Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC 11, stated that if the petitioner filed an appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, the issue of limitation would not be a bar, and the appeal would be heard on merits and decided within three months of its filing. This statement was accepted and taken on record. All issues were left open for determination in the appellate proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2022, show cause notices dated 28.02.2022, and demand notices dated 28.02.2022 are illegal and improper, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay on the operation of the impugned order and demand pending the writ application? 3. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to produce the materials based on which they formed their reason to believe for conducting inspection, search, and seizure operations under Section 67 of the GST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders and notices were illegal and improper. They sought a direction for the authorities to consider their reply to the show cause notice and pass a reasoned order. Furthermore, they requested the production of materials that formed the basis for the authorities' belief to conduct inspection, search, and seizure under Section 67 of the GST Act. The petitioner also sought a stay on the impugned order and demand. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents. However, the Court's observation implies that the petitioner has disputed questions of fact.
Sections Cited
Section 67
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 29-06-2022 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- “a. Issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to set aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.03.2022 in reference to GSTIN holder 10AKFPB2273H1ZU passed by the Respondent No. 03 inter alia declaring the same as illegal and improper. b. Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Show cause notices dated 28.02.2022 bearing Reference Nubmer-ZD1002220114873 and Reference No. ZD100222011510M passed by the Respondent No. 02 against the petitioner for the tax 2/3 period of the month of April 2020-March 2021 and April 2021- Oct. 2021 interlia declaring the same as illegal and improper. c. Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the Demand notices dated 28.02.2022 levying a demand of Rs. 2,56,52,073.79 for tax evasion in Financial year 2020-21 and Rs. 2,18,51,714.71 for tax evasion in the period of April 2021-October 2021. d. Directions that till the pendency of the writ application the op0eration of the impo0ugned order and any demand may be stayed. e. Direction to the Respondents Authorities (Respondent Nos. 01-04) to consider the reply to the show cause notice filed by the petitioner and pass reasoned order on it before making the impugned demand. f. Direction to the Respondents Authorities to bring on record the materials based on which they formed their reason to believe to conduct inspection, search and seizure operation under Section 67 of the GST Act, 2017. g. Any other relief or reliefs that the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case.” We are of the considered view that the petitioner has got an equally, efficacious alternative remedies of agitating the issues more so when the petitioner contends disputed questions of fact. As such, we dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to take recourse to such remedies as are 3/3 otherwise available in accordance with law under the provisions of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Shri Vikash Kumar, learned S.C.-11, states that if the petitioner were to file appeal within a period of four weeks from today, the issue of limitation shall not come in the way and the appeal shall be heard on merits, to be decided within a period of three months from the date of its filing. Statement accepted and taken on record. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on facts and law. All issues are left open. The present petition stands disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. Interlocutory application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Sujit/Ashwini (Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( S. Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 01.07.2022 Transmission Date
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.