M/S Humancare Pharma Private Limited, Lekha Nagar, Cantt Road, Danapur, Khagaul, Patna, Bihar vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals). The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that 10% of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had been deposited. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide it on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing was to be afforded to the parties to present all essential documents. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months, after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned and passing a speaking order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all issues were left open. The bank accounts of the petitioner were to be de-frozen immediately.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Humancare Pharma Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.09.2022 by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax (Appeals), Patna West Division, which rejected their application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration. This rejection was solely on grounds of limitation. The petitioner also challenged an ex-parte order dated 01.12.2018 by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Patna South Circle, which cancelled their GST registration without providing an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to COVID restrictions and the death of a director. The revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, without considering the delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for revocation of cancellation of GST registration solely on the ground of limitation, despite sufficient explanation for the delay? (Question of law) 2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration by the Joint Commissioner was valid, having been passed ex-parte and without affording an opportunity of hearing? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by COVID-19 restrictions and the death of a director. The initial cancellation order was ex-parte and violative of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits, with the delay not being a bar.