M/S Marda Collection Private Limited vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

M/s Marda Collection Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging several orders passed by State Tax authorities. These orders included those from the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, and the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes. The Petitioner contended that these orders were ex parte in nature. The Revenue, represented by the State of Bihar and its tax authorities, stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision. The Revenue further agreed that the ground of delay would not be considered and no coercive steps would be taken against the Petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Petitioner also stated that 10% of the disputed amount, a prerequisite for appeal hearing, had been deposited.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal) and the order dated 09.10.2021. The appeal was restored to its original file and number. The Court accepted the Petitioner's statement that 10% of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had been deposited, and if not, it was to be done before the next date. This deposit was to be without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the Appellate Authority's order, with a direction for refund if found to be in excess. The Court further directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the Petitioner's bank accounts. The Petitioner undertook to appear before the Appellate Authority on June 6, 2022, and the Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay, decide the appeal on merits after complying with principles of natural justice, afford parties an opportunity to present documents, and refrain from taking coercive steps during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to pass a speaking order within two months of the Petitioner's appearance. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, which appear to be ex parte, should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, considering the Revenue's no-objection to such a course of action? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders, implying they were passed without proper opportunity of hearing or consideration of their case. The Petitioner's primary concern was the ex parte nature of the orders. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue did not contest the Petitioner's request for a remand. They agreed to the matter being decided afresh by the Appellate Authority, with the condition that the delay in filing the appeal would be condoned and the appeal would be decided on merits. They also agreed to refrain from taking coercive steps against the Petitioner during the appeal process. The Revenue did not raise any specific counter-arguments against the Petitioner's plea for setting aside the ex parte orders.