M/S Mukhiya Jee Ply And Hardware 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. This was based on two primary reasons: (a) a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and sufficient time to represent their case; and (b) the ex parte assessment order lacked sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due. The Court found that such an order, passed in violation of natural justice principles and entailing civil consequences, warranted interference. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated February 9, 2020, and the appellate order dated March 3, 2021. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account(s). The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that 10% of the total amount had been deposited and directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 10% 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, including the petitioner, and to decide the matter on merits expeditiously, 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, and all issues were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, a GST assessee, challenged an order dated February 9, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes 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). The petitioner had previously filed an appeal against this order, which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) on March 3, 2021, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court. The Revenue opposed the petition, citing the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, considering the alleged violations of natural justice and the ex parte nature of the assessment order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the High Court should interfere because the impugned order was bad in law due to violations of the principles of natural justice, specifically a lack of sufficient opportunity to be heard. The petitioner also argued that the assessment order was passed ex parte without sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, arguing that an equally alternative efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner.