M/S Shree Bhuneshwari Pharma vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned appellate order dated January 15, 2021, and the original order dated August 24, 2019, along with the summary of order dated August 29, 2019. The Court found that the ex parte orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient reasons provided. The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that 10% of the total demand had been deposited and directed the petitioner to deposit an additional 10% 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 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 to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months. The Court explicitly stated that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case and all issues were left open. The proceedings were to be conducted through digital mode if possible during the pandemic.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Bhuneshwari Pharma, filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order dated January 15, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Patna West Division. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an order dated August 24, 2019, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna South Circle. The original order, issued under Sections 61, 73, and 50 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, along with a summary of order dated August 29, 2019, was for the tax period April 2018-December 2019. The rejection of the appeal was solely on the grounds of limitation. Both the original order and the appellate order were ex parte.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner on December 31, 2020, was within the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, considering the orders of this Court and the Supreme Court regarding the COVID-19 pandemic? 2. Whether the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, can be extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions, citing orders from a full bench of the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court. They argued that the appeal was within the extended limitation period and that the Limitation Act, 1963, should apply. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue's counsel stated they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with no coercive steps taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case.