M/S Anita Devi, A Proprietorship Firm With Proprietor Anita Devi vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that it was not precluded from interfering with the statutory remedy where, ex facie, the order was bad in law. This was based on two primary reasons: (a) violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient time to present their case, and (b) the ex-parte assessment order lacked sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due. The Court found that an ex-parte order passed in violation of natural justice entails civil consequences. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated February 2, 2020, the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07, and the appellate order dated February 27, 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 Court also noted that 10% of the total amount had been deposited and the petitioner undertook to deposit an additional 10% within four weeks. 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 before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated February 2, 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, the petitioner filed an appeal against the summary of order (Form GST DRC-07) dated February 2, 2020, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) on February 27, 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 should interfere in a matter where an alternative statutory remedy is available, despite alleged illegality in the impugned orders? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the scope of writ jurisdiction and availability of alternative remedies). 2. Whether the impugned order dated February 2, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, was bad in law due to violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of sufficient opportunity for hearing and an ex-parte assessment without sufficient reasoning? (Question of law, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the orders were bad in law due to violations of natural justice, specifically insufficient time for hearing and an ex-parte assessment without adequate reasoning. The petitioner also stated that 10% of the total amount had already been deposited as a prerequisite for appeal hearing. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue opposed the prayer on the ground of the availability of an equally alternative efficacious remedy.