Micro Info Solutions Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar And Ors

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case. While acknowledging the petitioner's grievance regarding the denial of a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the Court found merit in the revenue's preliminary objection concerning the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the records produced by the revenue indicated the participation of the petitioner's representative in the proceedings. Consequently, the Court upheld the preliminary objection but granted liberty to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy within 30 days from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal, including any application for condonation of delay, on its own merits, providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months of its filing, without being prejudiced by the High Court's order or the delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Micro Info Solutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was ex-parte and passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The revenue, represented by the State of Bihar and its Commercial Taxes authorities, opposed the prayer. The revenue pointed to the alternative appellate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Act. The Court directed the revenue to produce the original records, which demonstrated that the petitioner's representative had participated in the proceedings and received notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside on the ground of being ex-parte and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a reasonable opportunity of hearing? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the order was passed without affording them a proper hearing, making it ex-parte and thus invalid. Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that an alternative appellate remedy was available to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. They also presented records to demonstrate that the petitioner's representative had indeed participated in the proceedings and was aware of the notices issued.