M/S Aamna Parween vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Cum Commissioner

Held

The Court held that notwithstanding the statutory remedy, it was not precluded from interfering where an order is ex facie bad in law. This was based on two primary reasons: (a) a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded sufficient time to represent their case, and (b) the ex-parte assessment order lacked sufficient reasoning to justify the determined amount due. The Court found that the order, being ex-parte and in violation of natural justice, entailed civil consequences. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated January 31, 2020, the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated February 2, 2020, and the appellate order dated March 4, 2021. The Court directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account(s) and ordered the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, including the petitioner, and to decide the matter on merits expeditiously. The petitioner undertook to deposit an additional ten percent of the demand within four weeks, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues were left open.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated January 31, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Munger Circle, under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order led to the attachment of the petitioner's bank account(s). Subsequently, a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 was issued on February 2, 2020. The petitioner appealed this order, but the appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) on March 4, 2021, solely on the grounds of delay. The Revenue opposed the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court is precluded from interfering with the impugned order despite the availability of a statutory remedy, considering the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the assessment order? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the High Court should interfere because the impugned order was bad in law due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically a lack of sufficient opportunity to present their case, and that the ex-parte assessment order lacked sufficient reasoning. The petitioner also noted that 10% of the demand had already been deposited as a prerequisite for appeal. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue vehemently opposed the prayer, arguing that an equally alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner.