Mayank Singh vs. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner Of State Tax

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated November 6, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal). The Court directed that the appeal be decided on merits by passing a speaking order. If the amount recovered from the petitioner was found to be in excess, it was to be refunded within two months of the order. The Court also directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts, if attached. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide it on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing and complying with the principles of natural justice. Coercive steps were prohibited during the pendency of the appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues were left open. The Appellate Authority was to pass a fresh order expeditiously, preferably within two months from the petitioner's appearance.

Facts

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated November 6, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Patna. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order-in-original dated September 12, 2019, solely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The petitioner argued that the delay was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions. The petitioner also stated that the entire amount demanded by the department had been recovered. The Revenue had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with the delay not being a ground for rejection and no coercive steps to be taken during the pendency of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority was sufficiently explained due to COVID-19 restrictions, and if so, whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal on grounds of limitation, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of limitation provisions and the impact of COVID-19). Petitioner's Contention: The delay in filing the appeal was due to COVID-19 restrictions, and the Appellate Authority's rejection on limitation grounds was unjustified. The entire demand has been recovered. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue stated it had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits, with the delay not being taken into account and no coercive steps being taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.