M/S Pramod Khad Bhandar A Proprietorship Concern vs. The Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, as the impugned order was ex facie bad in law. The Court found two primary reasons for interference: (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 nature of the order, which lacked sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated March 5, 2020, and the summary of order issued in form GST DRC-07. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner was directed to deposit an additional ten percent of the demand raised within four weeks, without prejudice to their rights. The Assessing Officer was directed to afford adequate opportunity to all parties and pass a fresh order on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months from the petitioner's appearance. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to challenge the fresh order and for parties to pursue other remedies. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated March 5, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Sasaram Circle. The petitioner also sought relief regarding the attachment of bank accounts that occurred post the impugned order. The Revenue contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner confined their relief to specific prayer clauses of the writ petition, reserving liberty to pursue others later. The Court noted that the impugned order was passed ex parte and without sufficient reasons, violating principles of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 5, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes under Section 73 of the State Act, is liable to be quashed and set aside on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and lack of sufficient reasoning? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order was passed ex parte, without affording a fair opportunity of hearing and without providing sufficient time to represent their case. They further contended that the order lacked decipherable reasons for determining the amount due and payable, thus being bad in law. The petitioner also highlighted the attachment of their bank accounts as a consequence of the impugned order. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the petitioner had an equally alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.