Anil Bricks Udhog vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Anil Bricks Udhog, through its proprietor Anil Kumar, challenged an order dated January 22, 2019, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Sitamarhi, cancelling its GST registration under Section 29 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged an order dated October 22, 2021, by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax, Tirhut Division (Appeal), which dismissed its appeal in limine due to delay. The petitioner had been filing returns and depositing dues regularly since 2017, but due to issues with its tax consultant, returns for a certain period were not uploaded. The petitioner subsequently filed delayed returns with late fees and discharged the tax liability, requesting condonation of delay. The cancellation order was described as non-speaking and cryptic, violating principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the order dated January 22, 2019, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was liable to be quashed. The Court found the order to be non-speaking, cryptic, and a violation of the principles of natural justice because it failed to refer to the contents of the show cause notice and the petitioner's response. The Court noted that the cancellation order entailed civil and penal consequences. Regarding the appeal dismissal order, while not explicitly detailed, the Court's final directions suggest it was also set aside. The Court quashed the cancellation order and directed the restoration of the petitioner's registration. Furthermore, the Commissioner of State Tax was directed to finalize the petitioner's assessment or pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Court reiterated that the issue of delay in filing returns would not be raised again by the respondents. The writ petition was allowed on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated January 22, 2019, cancelling the petitioner's GST registration under Section 29 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being non-speaking and violating principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the order dated October 22, 2021, dismissing the petitioner's appeal in limine on the ground of delay in filing is sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was cryptic, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice as it did not refer to the show cause notice and the response thereto. They contended that despite a tax consultant's failure, they had filed delayed returns, paid late fees, and discharged tax liability, and therefore, the delay should have been condoned. They sought restoration of their registration. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records that Mr. Vivek Prasad (Gp7) appeared for the respondents. No specific arguments from the revenue are detailed in the provided text, other than their submission that the issue of delay in filing returns shall remain closed.