Bageshwari Prasad vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 7, the Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department, Bihar, Patna, to consider and decide the petitioner's case. This decision is to be made in terms of the judgment and order dated 05.07.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1452 of 2019 and the subsequent letter No. 5405 dated 30.07.2019. The Court explicitly clarified that all issues of fact and law are left open for consideration by the said authority. The Court expressed hope that the decision would be made expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the order. The operative direction is a remand to the Principal Secretary, Rural Work Department, for a fresh consideration of the petitioner's case.

Facts

The petitioner, Bageshwari Prasad, sought to quash orders dated February 13, 2021, and February 20, 2021, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, Gaya Circle. These orders directed various banks, including the State Bank of India, and Executive Engineers of the Rural Work Department to hold a sum of Rs. 62,25,535.00/- from the petitioner's accounts. This action was based on GST assessments, including interest and penalty, for the period November 2018 to March 2020, related to work contracts allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner also sought the release of his bank account and the revision of work estimates to include 12% GST, as it was not incorporated despite agreements being made post-GST implementation. Furthermore, the petitioner challenged the imposition of interest and penalty.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders dated 13.02.2021 and 20.02.2021, directing the holding of Rs. 62,25,535.00/- from the petitioner's accounts, are liable to be quashed? This issue turns on the legality of the recovery mechanism employed by the revenue authorities. The petitioner argued that the matter is covered by the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 1452 of 2019 (M/s Jai Bhawani Construction Vs. The Union of India and Ors.) and a subsequent letter dated 30.07.2019. The State submitted that it had no objection to the case being remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration on its merits. 2. Whether the imposition of interest and penalty on the petitioner is valid? This issue is intrinsically linked to the assessment and recovery process. The petitioner's contention, as noted above, is that the case is covered by precedent, implying that the imposition of interest and penalty might be erroneous if the underlying assessment is flawed or if the relief granted in the cited case applies.