Prem Chandan Kumar Bharti vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Prem Chandan Kumar Bharti, proprietor of M/s Bhramri Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle. The impugned orders included an order dated 26.02.2022, another order dated 30.05.2022 in Reference No. ZD1005220112368, a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.05.2022, and an order dated 12.10.2022 in process no. 832 in Form GST DRC-13. The petitioner contended that these orders were ex parte and passed in violation of principles of natural justice, with insufficient time afforded for representation and lack of reasoned adjudication on the amounts due. The Revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded for fresh decision on merits, with no coercive steps during pendency.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were bad in law for two primary reasons: (a) violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient time afforded to the petitioner to represent their case; and (b) the orders were passed ex parte without sufficient reasoning to determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The Court found that the authorities had not adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances, and all issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit twenty percent of the demand raised within four weeks, without prejudice to the rights of the parties, and ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with principles of natural justice, affording opportunity of hearing and to place documents, and to pass a speaking order within two months of the petitioner's appearance, during which no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner. All issues were left open for fresh adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Purnea Circle, were bad in law due to violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a fair opportunity of hearing, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the orders were ex parte, insufficient time was given for representation, and the adjudication lacked sufficient reasoning. 2. Whether the ex parte orders, which entail civil consequences, were passed without proper adjudication of the attending facts and circumstances, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that all issues of fact and law should have been dealt with, even in ex parte proceedings. The Revenue did not contest these points and agreed to a remand.