M/S Electro INDIA vs. The State Of Bihar

Held

The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that ten percent of the total amount, a prerequisite 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 rights and contentions of the parties. The Court directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank accounts. The Appellate Authority was directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide it on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice, affording adequate opportunity to all concerned. No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal. The Appellate Authority was to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within two months. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and all issues were left open.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Electro India, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 28.02.2020 by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an ex-parte order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Begusarai. The rejection was solely on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner sought to quash the appellate order and requested a direction for the appeal to be considered on its merits. The revenue stated it had no objection if the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the delay not being a bar and no coercive steps being taken during the pendency of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) was sufficiently explained, and if so, whether the appeal should be considered on its merits? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the COVID-19 restrictions, which prevented timely submission. They argued that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue's counsel stated they had no objection to the matter being remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh decision on merits, and that the ground of delay should not be taken into account. They also agreed that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal.