Corrtech International Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Corrtech International Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 15, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Purnea Division. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated February 24, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Purnea Circle, and a summary of order in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner contended that these orders were ex parte and lacked sufficient reasons. The Revenue, through its counsel, agreed to a remand to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, without objection to limitation, and without coercive steps against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were bad in law on multiple grounds. Firstly, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and sufficient time to represent its case. Secondly, the ex parte orders lacked sufficient reasoning to justify the determination of the amount due. Thirdly, the authorities failed to adjudicate the matter on the attending facts and circumstances, neglecting to deal with all issues of fact and law. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated September 15, 2021, the order dated February 24, 2021, and the summary of order in Form GST DRC-07. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit ten percent of the total amount (if not already deposited) and an additional ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks. Bank accounts were to be de-frozen. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Assessing Authority on November 2, 2022, for a decision on merits after complying with natural justice principles, with proceedings to be completed expeditiously, preferably within two months. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during this period. The Court expressly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 are bad in law due to violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient time afforded to the petitioner to represent its case? 2. Whether the ex parte orders, which do not assign sufficient reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee, are liable to be set aside? 3. Whether the authorities failed to adjudicate the matter on the attending facts and circumstances, and if all issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with even in ex parte proceedings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the orders were ex parte, passed without providing a fair opportunity of hearing, and lacked sufficient reasoning. The Revenue's arguments: The Revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, without limitation being an impediment, and without coercive steps against the petitioner.