Mayank Singh vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated November 6, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, solely on the grounds of delay. The petitioner contended that the delay was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. 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, and that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The High Court accepted this statement.
Held
The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 6, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal). The Court accepted the statement that 10% of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had been deposited. If not, it was to be deposited before the next date. This deposit was without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the Appellate Authority's final order, with a refund mechanism if the deposit was found to be in excess. The Court directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on July 26, 2021. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay, decide the appeal on merits after affording opportunities and complying with principles of natural justice, and pass a speaking order. Coercive steps were prohibited during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within two months. The Court explicitly stated it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, occasioned by COVID-19 restrictions, was sufficiently explained and should be condoned, under Section 62(1) of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the delay was unavoidable due to the pandemic and its associated restrictions, and therefore, the Appellate Authority should have considered the appeal on merits. The Revenue stated it had no objection to the delay being condoned and the appeal being decided on merits. The Court had to decide if the Appellate Authority's rejection of the appeal solely on grounds of delay was justified, given the circumstances.
Sections Cited
Section 62(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) ===================================================== (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice/ Hon’ble Judges through Video
Conferencing
from their
residential offices/residences. Also, the Advocates and the Staffs joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their
residences/offices.)
2/7 Date : 24-06-2021 Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):
3/7 It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dated 6th of November, 2020 (Annexure-6) passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), West Division, Patna in Reference No. ZD101120000426J, the appeal of the petitioner against the order-in-original no. 8396 contained in Form GST ASMT-13, under Section 62(1) of the GST Act, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Circle, Patna has been rejected merely on the grounds of delay. In our considered view, the delay stands sufficiently explained on account of COVID restrictions. Learned counsel for the Revenue, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. Also, while considering and deciding the appeal, the ground of delay 4/7 shall not be taken into account and the appeal shall be decided on merits. Also, during pendency of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Statement accepted and taken on record. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record made available, we dispose of the present petition in the following mutually agreeable terms:- (a) We quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6th of November, 2020 (Annexure-6) passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), West Division, Patna in Reference No. ZD101120000426J; (b) We accept the statement of the petitioner that ten per cent of the total amount, being condition prerequisite for hearing of the appeal, already stands deposited. If that were so, the appeal shall be decided on merits. However, if the amount is not deposited for whatever reason(s), same shall be done before the next date; (c) This deposit shall be without prejudice to the 5/7 respective rights and contention of the parties and subject to the order passed by the Appellate Authority. However, if it is ultimately found that the petitioner’s deposit is in excess, the same shall be refunded within two months from the date of passing of the order; (d) We also direct for de-freezing/de-attaching of the bank account(s) of the writ-petitioner, if attached in reference to the proceedings, subject matter of present petition. This shall be done immediately. (e) Petitioner undertakes to appear before the Appellate Authority i.e. Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), West Division, Patna on 26th of July, 2021 at 10:30 A.M., if possible through digital mode; (f) The Appellate Authority shall condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits by passing a speaking order after complying with the principles of natural justice; (g) Opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the parties to place on record all essential documents and materials, if so required and desired; (h) During pendency of the appeal, no coercive 6/7 steps shall be taken against the petitioner. (i) The Appellate Authority shall pass a fresh order only after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, including the writ petitioner; (j) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate in such proceedings and not take unnecessary adjournment; (k) The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner; (l) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order, if required and desired; (m) Equally, liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such other remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law; (n) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law, with a reasonable dispatch; (o) We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open; (p) If possible, proceedings during the time of 7/7 current Pandemic [Covid-19] be conducted through digital mode; The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to communicate the order to the appropriate authority through electronic mode. Sujit/PKP- (Sanjay Karol, CJ) (S. Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.