M/S Anita Devi vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court held that notwithstanding the statutory remedy, it was not precluded from interfering where the order was ex facie bad in law. Two primary reasons were cited: (a) violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient time afforded to the petitioner, and (b) the ex parte assessment order lacked sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due. The Court found that an order passed ex parte in violation of natural justice entails civil consequences. Consequently, on these grounds alone, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated February 2, 2020, and the appellate order dated February 27, 2021. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner undertook to deposit an additional ten percent of the demand within four weeks, without prejudice to their rights. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, preferably within two months of the petitioner's appearance. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition 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 accounts. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) on February 27, 2021, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner then approached the High Court, seeking relief against these orders. The revenue opposed the petition, citing the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes is bad in law due to violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient time afforded to the petitioner to represent their case? 2. Whether the ex parte assessment order, which allegedly lacks sufficient reasoning for determining the amount due, is liable to be set aside? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the order was bad in law due to violations of natural justice, specifically inadequate opportunity to be heard. They also argued that the assessment order was passed ex parte without sufficient reasoning. The petitioner stated that ten percent of the total demand had already been deposited as a prerequisite for appeal hearing. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue opposed the petition on the ground that an equally alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner.