Vspl Energy Private LTD. vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated March 12, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal). The Court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total amount, a condition for hearing the appeal, had been deposited. If not deposited, it was to be done before the next date. This deposit was to be without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the Appellate Authority's final order, with a direction for refund if found to be in excess within two months of the order. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts immediately. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on July 26, 2021, for the appeal to be decided on merits after condoning the delay. The Appellate Authority was directed to pass a speaking order, comply with principles of natural justice, afford opportunities for presenting documents, and refrain from taking coercive steps during the appeal's pendency. The appeal was to be decided expeditiously, preferably within two months. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated March 12, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal). This order had rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order-in-original dated December 19, 2019, issued by the Assessing Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The petitioner contended that the appellate order was passed in a mechanical manner. The Revenue, through its counsel, agreed to a remand of the matter to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, without considering the ground of delay, and also agreed that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Court accepted this statement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated March 12, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal) rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order-in-original is sustainable in law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appellate order was passed in a mechanical manner, implying a lack of proper consideration of the appeal on its merits. The petitioner also stated that ten percent of the total disputed amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had already been deposited. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel stated that they had no objection if the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh. They further agreed that the ground of delay should not be taken into account and the appeal should be decided on merits. Additionally, they agreed that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.