Dhananjay Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar, Through The Commissioner - Cum - Principal Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Dhananjay Kumar Singh, challenged an order dated January 23, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated March 7, 2020, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, for the tax period March 2019 (FY 2018-19). The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. Both the original order and the demand notice were ex parte. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits, without considering the delay, and that no coercive steps would be taken during the pendency of the appeal.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated January 23, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The appeal was restored to its original file and number. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total amount, a condition for hearing the appeal, had been deposited, and directed that if not deposited, it should be done before the next date. This deposit is without prejudice to the rights of the parties and subject to the final order. Any excess deposit is to be refunded within two months of the final order. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts immediately. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide it on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties. No coercive steps are to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority is 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 the merits of the case, and all issues were left open. Proceedings during the pandemic are to be conducted digitally if possible.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, should be condoned, thereby allowing the appeal to be decided on merits, as per the contentions of the petitioner? 2. Whether the impugned order dated January 23, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, is sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. The petitioner also stated that ten percent of the total disputed amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had already been deposited. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue stated that it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh on merits, without taking the ground of delay into account. The Revenue also agreed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.