Rohit Kumar Ojha vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioner, Rohit Kumar Ojha, proprietor of M/S Rohit Kumar Ojha, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), West Division Patna. The appeal was rejected by the Additional Commissioner on the grounds of being time-barred. The petitioner sought to quash this order and requested a direction to the authorities to decide the appeal afresh, considering the Supreme Court's order in Suo Moto writ petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 regarding COVID-19 restrictions. The order of rejection was ex parte. The Revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits, without considering the delay.

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), West Division Patna, which had rejected the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that ten percent of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had been deposited. The Court directed that the appeal be decided on merits, and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The Appellate Authority was instructed to decide the appeal after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording an opportunity to both parties to present their documents and materials. During the pendency of the appeal, no coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner. The Appellate Authority was to pass a speaking order 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, leaving all issues open. Bank accounts of the petitioner, if attached, were to be de-frozen immediately.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority should be rejected solely on the ground of being barred by limitation, despite the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions, as per the Supreme Court's Suo Moto writ petition (Civil) No. 3/2020? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. They sought a direction to have the appeal decided on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with the ground of delay not being taken into account. They also agreed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.