Rajeev Kumar vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were bad in law on two primary grounds: (a) violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient time afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; and (b) the orders were passed ex parte without assigning sufficient reasons to decipher how the officer determined the amount due and payable. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 02.03.2020 and 03.03.2020. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit twenty percent of the demand within four weeks, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The bank accounts of the petitioner were ordered to be de-frozen. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording parties an opportunity to present documents, and passing a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within two months. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during this period. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeev Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging three orders dated 02.03.2020 and 03.03.2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Muzaffarpur East. These orders pertained to tax periods December 2018 to March 2019 and October 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner sought to quash these orders on the grounds that they were passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without passing a speaking order. The revenue, represented by the Commissioner of State Tax, stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with no coercive steps taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 02.03.2020 and 03.03.2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act), are liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair opportunity of hearing, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the impugned orders are bad in law for being passed ex parte without sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due and payable by the assessee, as contended by the petitioner. 3. Whether the Court should interfere despite the existence of statutory remedies, given the alleged ex facie illegality of the orders. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the orders were passed without a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without a speaking order, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought quashing of the orders and consequential reliefs. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits and agreed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.