Amarnath Ray vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Amarnath Ray, challenged an order dated April 8, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Purnea Division. This appellate order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated December 16, 2020, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Katihar Circle. The rejection was solely on the grounds of the appeal being barred by limitation. Both the original order and the appellate order 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 to the matter being remanded for fresh decision on merits.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated April 8, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) and the order dated December 16, 2020, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes. The Court found that the ex parte nature of the orders, coupled with the violation of the principles of natural justice (lack of sufficient opportunity of hearing and insufficient reasoning), rendered the orders bad in law. The Court noted that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained by COVID-19 restrictions. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit ten percent of the total amount demanded within four weeks and also deposit an additional ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer. The bank account(s) of the petitioner were ordered to be de-frozen immediately. The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, and passing a speaking order within two months from the petitioner's appearance. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions, thereby warranting condonation of delay? (Question of fact and law, concerning principles of limitation and condonation of delay). 2. Whether the ex parte orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner violated the principles of natural justice by not affording a fair opportunity of hearing and by not providing sufficient reasons? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, which should have been considered for condonation. Furthermore, the ex parte nature of both orders, without sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and without adequate reasoning, rendered them bad in law and violative of natural justice principles. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh on merits.