Lalan Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. Instead, it found it appropriate, as suggested by the petitioner's counsel, for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority again. The Court noted that the issues raised were not new and had been presented before the appellate authority previously. The Court acknowledged that the GST Tribunal was not yet constituted, justifying the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority on November 30, 2020. The appellate authority was instructed to consider all aspects of the case and pass a decision preferably within two months thereafter. All issues were left open for the appellate authority's consideration, and no opinion was expressed on the merits. The Court also ordered that no coercive action for recovery of the amount would be taken against the petitioner until a decision was reached by the appellate authority. The appellate authority was permitted to pass a fresh order as per law if required.

Facts

The petitioner, Lalan Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an appellate order dated March 5, 2020, and an ex-parte assessment order dated September 14, 2019, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes. The petitioner contended that the appellate authority failed to consider the arguments raised regarding the applicability of Sections 16, 37, 39, 44, and 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner also argued that once a statutory return (GSTR 3B for July 2019) was filed, the assessment order should merge with it, and that Section 62 assessments are based on presumptions rather than actual figures. The absence of a constituted GST Tribunal led the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate order dated March 5, 2020, is liable to be quashed for failing to consider the petitioner's contentions regarding Sections 16, 37, 39, 44, and 62 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the appellate authority did not consider the grounds raised in the appeal, specifically concerning the applicability of the mentioned sections. The petitioner also contended that after filing a statutory return (GSTR 3B for July 2019), the assessment order under Section 62 should merge with it regarding admitted tax liability. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that Section 62 assessments are based on presumptions and cannot substitute actual figures of purchases, sales, and admitted tax liability. Revenue's arguments: The State/authority argued that the petitioner failed to exercise his statutory right under Section 62 of the Act, leaving the authority with no option but to pass the order. The petitioner countered that a right to appeal exists even after an order under Section 62 is passed.