Juno Bitumix Private Limited vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07. The Court found the order to be bad in law due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and the ex parte nature of the proceedings. The Court noted that the order did not provide sufficient reasons for determining the amount due. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit ten percent of the total amount (if not already deposited) and an additional ten percent of the demand raised within four weeks, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The Court also ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording opportunities for hearing and submission of documents, and passing a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months from the petitioner's appearance. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all issues were left open. The Court also suggested conducting proceedings through digital mode during the pandemic.

Facts

The petitioner, Juno Bitumix Private Limited, challenged an ex parte order dated August 28, 2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Special Circle, Patna, under Section 62 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought to quash this order and the related summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period May 2019. The primary grievance was that the order was passed without serving a notice under Section 46 of the BGST Act, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Revenue, through its counsel, agreed to a remand for fresh decision on merits, with no coercive steps to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 for May 2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, are liable to be quashed for being ex parte and passed without service of notice under Section 46 of the BGST Act, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex parte and without proper notice under Section 46 of the BGST Act, violating the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity of hearing. The petitioner also highlighted that insufficient time was provided to represent its case and that the order lacked sufficient reasons for determining the amount due. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh on merits, and that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.