2021 (10) TMI 471 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected without considering the time petition filed by the petitioner as well as grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal filed before him - HELD THAT - It is brought to notice that vide impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Purnea Division, Purnea, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no.3, namely the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Katihar-Purnea, Bihar has been rejected, without following the principles of natural justice. It is informed that the appeal through electronic mode stood filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Revenue, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh - appeal is restored to its original file and number - petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Petition for quashing order, demand notice, and penalty under GST Acts
2. Rejection of appeal without following principles of natural justice
3. Request to restrain recovery proceedings and coercive actions
4. Resolution terms agreed upon by the parties

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition to quash the order, demand notice, and penalty imposed under the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (BGST Act, 2017) and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act, 2017) for the period October 2019 to March 2020. The impugned order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The High Court noted that the appeal against this order was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) without following the principles of natural justice. The Revenue's counsel agreed to remand the matter for a fresh decision without considering the delay and refraining from coercive actions during the appeal process.

2. The High Court, after hearing both parties and perusing the records, disposed of the petition by setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) and restoring the appeal to its original file and number. The petitioner was directed to deposit ten percent of the total amount for the appeal to be heard, and the bank accounts were to be de-frozen immediately. The petitioner was required to appear before the Appellate Authority, and the delay in filing the appeal was to be condoned. Both parties were given an opportunity to present essential documents, and no coercive steps were to be taken during the appeal process.

3. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months, and to provide a speaking order with reasons. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the order if necessary, and both parties were allowed to seek other remedies available in accordance with the law. The Court did not express any opinion on merits, leaving all issues open for further consideration. The proceedings were encouraged to be conducted through digital mode during the pandemic, and the petition was disposed of along with any interlocutory applications.

4. The resolution terms included various directives for the parties to cooperate, for the Appellate Authority to conduct proceedings fairly, and for timely decision-making with proper reasoning. The liberty to challenge the order and seek other remedies was granted, emphasizing the adherence to legal procedures with reasonable dispatch. The judgment concluded with a neutral stance on merits, highlighting the importance of digital proceedings during the pandemic and the communication of the order to the appropriate authority by the respondents' counsel.

← Previous Next →