Star INDIA Construction PVT. LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Bihar

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 01.09.2021 was in the nature of a show cause notice and not a final order. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner was directed to appear before the assessing officer on 15.12.2021, and two weeks' time was granted for filing a response to the show cause notice. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The assessing officer was mandated to pass a reasoned order within two months of receiving the petitioner's response, a copy of which would be supplied to the petitioner. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies if needed subsequently. All questions of fact and law were left open. The Court's reasoning was based on the submission by the learned Advocate General and its own perusal of the counter affidavit and the impugned communication.

Facts

The petitioner, Star India Construction Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (GST). The petitioner also sought the refund of amounts allegedly illegally withdrawn or seized by the authorities from its HDFC and SBI bank accounts. The petition was heard by the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice S. Kumar. The Court interacted with the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Commercial Taxes, Bihar, who assured that a training module would be prepared for officers discharging quasi-judicial functions under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the impugned order dated 01.09.2021 was in the nature of a show cause notice, not a final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 01.09.2021, which the petitioner seeks to quash, is a final order or a show cause notice, and if it is a show cause notice, what is the appropriate course of action? (This issue turns on the interpretation of the nature of the communication from the revenue authority). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 01.10.2021, implying it was a final adverse order requiring challenge. The petitioner also sought the refund of seized amounts. Revenue's Contention: The learned Advocate General, Shri Lalit Kishore, submitted that the impugned order dated 01.09.2021 was in the nature of a show cause notice. The Court did not record any specific arguments from the revenue regarding the refund of seized amounts.