2021 (4) TMI 1097 - HC - GST

Failure of the petitioner to furnish monthly returns under Section 39 of GST Act - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The impugned orders dated 29.10.2018, 31.7.2019, 7.8.2019, 24.7.2019 and 20.8.2019 passed by the Respondent No.3, the Joint Commissioner of Sate Taxes, Danapur Circle, East Circle, Muzaffarpur in Form ASMT-13 need to be quashed and set aside, for the same to have been passed without following the principles of natural justice. In terms of the impugned order, financial liability stands fastened. Thus, it entails civil consequences, seriously prejudicing the petitioner inasmuch as, without affording any adequate opportunity of hearing or assigning any reason. Shri Satyabir Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner states that without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties, petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of ₹ 5 lacs with the appropriate authority within a period of two weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of ex-parte assessment orders under the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Quashing of consequential summary orders.
3. Quashing of Notice of demand.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the orders.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief in quashing ex-parte assessment orders and consequential summaries issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes. The Court found that the orders were passed without following the principles of natural justice, violating the petitioner's rights. The financial liability imposed without proper hearing prejudiced the petitioner. The Court ordered the quashing of the impugned orders for the specified period, emphasizing the importance of natural justice in such proceedings.

2. The Court also addressed the quashing of the Notice of demand issued under the GST Act. The petitioner's counsel expressed readiness to deposit a specified amount as a gesture of cooperation, which was accepted by the Court. The deposit was made without prejudice to the rights of the parties, with the matter subject to further consideration based on additional material to be provided by the petitioner.

3. In light of the violation of natural justice principles, the Court set out detailed directions for the petitioner, including the deposit of a specific amount, appearance before the authority, provision of additional material if required, and cooperation in the proceedings. The authority was directed to decide on the matter by a specified date, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles. The Court clarified that the order was based on procedural grounds and did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

4. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition in accordance with the outlined terms, with provisions for digital proceedings during the pandemic. The parties were granted liberty to pursue further legal remedies as per the law. Additionally, the Court highlighted the refund obligation if the deposited amount exceeded the determined liability, emphasizing the statutory provisions for prompt refund in such cases.