Ritesh Kumar Suman vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated February 1, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Laheriasarai, Bhagalpur, was bad in law due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner. The Court also found that the ex-parte order did not provide sufficient reasons for determining the amount due. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. The Court directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner was directed to deposit ten percent of the total amount, if not already deposited, and additionally deposit another ten percent of the demand raised within four weeks. These deposits were to be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, and passing a speaking order within two months from the petitioner's appearance. 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 merits and all issues were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, Ritesh Kumar Suman, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking to quash an ex-parte order dated February 1, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Laheriasarai, Bhagalpur. The petitioner also sought the release of his bank accounts, which were allegedly attached, and the refund of amounts illegally seized. The impugned order was passed by the Assessing Officer. The revenue, through its counsel, stated it 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. The Court noted that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without sufficient reasons.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex-parte order dated February 1, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Laheriasarai, Bhagalpur, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of sufficient reasoning. (This issue turns on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex-parte without affording a fair opportunity of hearing and that it lacked sufficient reasons to determine the amount due. The petitioner sought quashing of the order, release of bank accounts, and refund of illegally seized amounts. Revenue's Contentions: The counsel for the revenue stated there was no objection to remanding the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, and that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case. The revenue did not contest the petitioner's claim regarding procedural irregularities.