2021 (7) TMI 1037 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - sufficient time was not afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - ex-parte order - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. Here is violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - also the order passed ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. Petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Quashing of orders passed under Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
2. Rejection of appeal on the grounds of being barred by limitation.
3. Interference by the Court on the basis of violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Directions for remand and fresh decision by the Assessing Authority.
5. Conditions imposed on the petitioner for deposit and cooperation in proceedings.
6. De-freezing/de-attaching of bank accounts.
7. Timeframe for decision by the Assessing Authority.
8. Liberty reserved for challenging the order and other available remedies.
9. Conducting proceedings through digital mode during the pandemic.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief to quash various orders passed under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing lack of a reasonable opportunity to be heard and absence of speaking orders. The High Court found merit in the argument, especially due to the ex parte nature of the orders and the impact of COVID restrictions on the delay in filing the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice and set aside the impugned orders, directing for a fresh decision by the Assessing Authority.

2. The appeal by the petitioner was rejected on the grounds of being time-barred. However, the Court considered the explanation for the delay due to COVID restrictions as valid. The Court intervened, highlighting the need for a fair opportunity to present the case and ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the delay was sufficiently explained.

3. The Court, despite acknowledging the statutory remedy available, decided to intervene due to the violation of principles of natural justice. The Court emphasized that an ex parte order without adequate reasons and opportunity for the petitioner to present their case is unacceptable. As a result, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed for a fresh decision with proper adherence to natural justice principles.

4. The Court directed the Assessing Authority to re-examine the case, ensuring a fair opportunity for all parties to present essential documents and materials. The Court imposed conditions on the petitioner regarding deposit requirements and cooperation in the proceedings, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution within a specified timeframe.

5. Various directions were provided, including de-freezing/de-attaching of bank accounts, conducting proceedings through digital mode, and ensuring no coercive steps against the petitioner during the case's pendency. The Court reserved liberty for challenging the order and other available legal remedies, maintaining an open stance on all issues.

6. The judgment emphasized the importance of conducting proceedings through digital mode during the pandemic, ensuring efficient and safe legal processes. The Court disposed of the petition with detailed terms and conditions, outlining steps for future proceedings and the rights of the parties involved.

← Previous Next →