Shri Raj Communication vs. State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Raj Communication, challenged an order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Patna West Division. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna, West Circle. The appeal pertained to the tax period 2019-20 and a summary of the order issued in form GST DRC-07. The petitioner sought relief from the High Court. The Revenue, through its counsel, stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, without taking into account the ground of delay, and that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.

Held

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The Court accepted the statement that 10% of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had been deposited by the petitioner. If this deposit was not made, 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 Assessing Officer, with a direction for refund if it was found to be in excess within two months of the final order. The Court also directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank account(s) immediately. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone any delay in filing the appeal and decide the appeal on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording opportunity to both parties. 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 two 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 digitally if possible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority should be decided on merits, condoning any delay in filing. - Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a fresh decision on merits by the Appellate Authority, implying that the rejection of the appeal was erroneous. The petitioner also stated that 10% of the disputed amount, a prerequisite for appeal hearing, had been deposited. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue agreed to the remand of the matter to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, without considering the delay, and also agreed to a stay on coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. 2. Whether the bank account(s) of the petitioner, if attached, should be de-frozen. - Petitioner's contention: Implied by the prayer for relief, the petitioner sought the de-freezing of their bank accounts which were allegedly attached in relation to the proceedings. - Revenue's contention: Not recorded in the judgment.