M/S D.K. Construction vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, M/s D.K. Construction, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated July 27, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), State Tax, Bhagalpur Division. This appellate order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an ex-parte adjudication order dated March 4, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Jamui Circle. The adjudication order pertained to the period October 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019, and demanded tax of Rs. 1,17,281/-, interest of Rs. 24,350/-, and penalty of Rs. 1,17,281/-, totaling Rs. 2,58,912/-. The appeal was rejected primarily on grounds of delay and non-supply of a certified copy of the impugned order, during the COVID-19 pandemic period.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated July 27, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal). The appeal was restored to its original file and number. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that 10% of the total demand had already been deposited as a prerequisite for hearing the appeal. The petitioner was directed to additionally deposit another 10% of the demand within four weeks, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal, decide the appeal on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, afford adequate opportunity to all parties, and pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within two months. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the grounds of delay and non-supply of a certified copy of the impugned order, especially considering the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic restrictions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions and that the appellate order was passed mechanically without application of mind, failing to address the grounds raised by the petitioner. They sought to quash the appellate order and direct the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with the ground of delay not being taken into account and no coercive steps being taken during the pendency of the appeal.