Zydus Healthcare Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Zydus Healthcare Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated August 13, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Patna West. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated February 3, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna West Circle, for the tax period April 2020 to June 2020. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The appellate order was passed ex parte. The petitioner contended that the delay was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits, without considering the delay, and without coercive steps during the pendency of the appeal.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned appellate order dated August 13, 2021. The appeal was restored to its original file and number. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total disputed amount had been deposited as a prerequisite for hearing the appeal. If not deposited, it was to be done before the next date. This deposit was to be without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the Assessing Officer's final order, with a provision for refund if found to be in excess. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts, if attached. The petitioner undertook to appear before the Appellate Authority on April 11, 2022. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay, decide the appeal on merits after complying with principles of natural justice, afford opportunity for presenting documents, and refrain from taking coercive steps during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the petitioner's appearance. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, considering the prevailing COVID-19 restrictions during the relevant period? 2. Whether the appellate authority failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice by passing an ex parte order without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity to be heard? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions, which hindered their ability to file within the prescribed time. They also contended that the appellate authority failed to provide a proper hearing before passing an ex parte order. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with the condition that the ground of delay would not be taken into account and no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.