Geeta Devi vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had already been deposited. If not deposited, it was to be done before the next date. This deposit was to be without prejudice to the rights of the parties and subject to the final order of the Appellate Authority, with a provision for refund if it was found to be in excess. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank account(s) if attached. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 30.07.2021. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide it on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording opportunities for hearing and submission of documents. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within three months from the petitioner's appearance. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open. The proceedings were to be conducted through digital mode if possible.

Facts

The petitioner, Geeta Devi, proprietor of Shree Krishna Sales, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), West Division, Patna. This order rejected her appeal against an assessment order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Buxar. The sole ground for rejection by the appellate authority was the delay in filing the appeal. Both the assessment order and the appellate order were ex parte. The petitioner contended that the delay was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. The revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, without considering the ground of delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of delay, considering the prevailing COVID-19 restrictions at the time of filing. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated restrictions, and therefore, the appellate authority should have considered the appeal on its merits. The petitioner sought a direction to the appellate authority to hear and dispose of the appeal on merit. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue stated that it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. It further agreed that the ground of delay should not be taken into account, and the appeal should be decided on merits. The Revenue also agreed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.