2021 (8) TMI 876 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - fair opportunity of hearing and sufficient time was not provided - order passed in ex-parte - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This is for two reasons- (a) violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case; (b) 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. Order quashed and set aside - Attachment of bank accounts vacated. - Matter restored back. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition for writ orders to quash impugned orders under BGST Act, appeal dismissal, and refund; violation of natural justice principles in orders; interference by the Court despite statutory remedy; disposal of the writ petition on mutually agreeable terms.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Prayers:
The petitioner sought writ orders to quash impugned orders under the BGST Act for tax periods, appeal dismissals, and refund of a specific amount. The impugned orders were passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax and Additional Commissioner of State Tax, which were affirmed in appeal. The petitioner challenged these orders citing violation of natural justice principles and lack of sufficient reasoning for determining the amount due.

2. Court's Consideration:
The Court acknowledged the Revenue's willingness to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the Assessing Authority without coercive steps during the case's pendency. However, the Court asserted its authority to interfere if an order appears to be legally flawed. In this case, the Court found violations of natural justice principles and insufficient reasoning in the impugned orders, leading to civil consequences.

3. Court's Decision:
Based on the above considerations, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Joint Commissioner and Additional Commissioner. The Court also directed the refund of the demanded amount already paid by the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. The Court ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and set conditions for further proceedings before the Assessing Authority.

4. Directions to Parties:
The Court directed the petitioner to cooperate in the proceedings, appear before the Assessing Authority, and not seek unnecessary adjournments. It emphasized the need for a speedy resolution of the case, with the Assessing Authority required to pass a speaking order with reasons provided. The Court reserved the liberty for the petitioner to challenge the order and for parties to explore other legal remedies.

5. Closure of the Case:
The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for further legal recourse. The Court disposed of the petition on mutually agreeable terms, ensuring that proceedings during the pandemic were conducted through digital mode. Any interlocutory applications were also disposed of, with the respondents tasked to communicate the order electronically to the appropriate authority.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the petitioner's prayers, the Court's considerations, the decision rendered, directions given to the parties, and the closure of the case in a comprehensive manner.