Juno Bitumix Private Limited vs. State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) and the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, along with the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07. The Court found that the orders were bad in law due to violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and the ex parte nature of the proceedings without sufficient reasons for determining the amount due. The delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by COVID-19 restrictions. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the total amount (if not already deposited) and an additional 10% of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks. Bank accounts were to be de-frozen. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with principles of natural justice, affording adequate opportunity to parties, and preferably within two months of the petitioner's appearance. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during this period. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on merits, leaving all issues open.

Facts

The petitioner, Juno Bitumix Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Respondent No. 3) under Section 62 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019. This order, along with a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, was passed ex parte without service of notice under Section 46 of the BGST Act. The petitioner's appeal against this order was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) (Respondent No. 2) on 04.09.2020, solely on the grounds of delay in filing. The petitioner sought to quash both the initial ex parte order and the appellate order rejecting the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax under Section 62 of the BGST Act, and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, are liable to be quashed for non-service of notice under Section 46 of the BGST Act and violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), rejecting the petitioner's appeal on the solitary ground of delay, is liable to be quashed. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that both the initial order and the appellate order were passed ex parte without proper notice and opportunity of hearing, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to COVID-19 restrictions. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for fresh decision on merits, with no coercive steps to be taken against the petitioner during pendency.