Rambabu Singh vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. It further found that the impugned orders were bad in law on two primary grounds: (a) violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and sufficient time to represent their case, and (b) the orders were passed ex-parte without assigning sufficient reasons to determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The Court emphasized that orders passed in violation of natural justice, entailing civil consequences, warrant interference. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2020 (Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal)), the order dated 05.03.2020 (Deputy Commissioner of State Tax), and the notice dated 03.02.2020. The Court directed the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording adequate opportunity to all parties, and passing a speaking order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues were left open. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and stipulated conditions regarding the deposit of 10% of the total amount and an additional 10% of the demand.

Facts

The petitioner, Rambabu Singh, challenged a notice dated 03.02.2020 and subsequent orders dated 05.03.2020 and 28.12.2020, issued by the respondents (State of Bihar, Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), and Deputy Commissioner of State Tax). The notice and orders pertained to the tax period October 2018 to March 2019, quantifying tax, interest, and penalty. The Deputy Commissioner had passed an order under Section 74(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed in limine by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders, primarily arguing a violation of natural justice and lack of speaking orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) was liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of delay, considering the prevailing COVID-19 restrictions? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of limitation provisions in light of extraordinary circumstances). 2. Whether the orders passed by the respondent authorities violated the principles of natural justice by not affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing ex-parte orders without sufficient reasoning? (Question of law, concerning procedural fairness and due process). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. Furthermore, the orders passed were bad in law as they violated the principles of natural justice, lacked sufficient reasoning, and were passed ex-parte without adequate opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The petitioner relied on the general principles of natural justice and the need for speaking orders. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with no coercive steps to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case. No specific provisions or precedents were cited by the Revenue in the judgment.