2022 (2) TMI 83 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternate remedy - exparte order - fair opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - time limitation - 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. 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. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of appellate order dated 11.02.2021 under Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017
2. Quashing of order dated 07.08.2019 under Bihar and Service Tax Act 2017
3. Declaration of no liability due to transitional credit claim
4. Restraining coercive action during pendency of writ application
5. Interference by the Court due to violation of natural justice principles

Analysis:
1. The Petitioners sought a writ to quash the appellate order dated 11.02.2021, which rejected their appeal for being time-barred under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. The High Court noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to COVID restrictions, and despite the Revenue's willingness to remand the case for fresh consideration, the Court intervened due to violations of natural justice principles. The Court found the ex parte nature of the order without sufficient reasons unacceptable, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.

2. Another issue involved the quashing of the order dated 07.08.2019 under the Bihar and Service Tax Act 2017, along with the summary of order issued on 16.08.2019. The Court observed that the order was nonspeaking and disregarded legal precedents, thus violating natural justice principles. The Court emphasized that orders passed ex parte must provide adequate reasons and afford a fair opportunity for the party to present their case. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the case to be decided afresh by the Assessing Authority.

3. The Petitioners also sought a declaration that no tax liability should be imposed due to a transitional credit claim that was inadvertently made but not utilized against tax liabilities. The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's reversal of the claim before the impugned order was passed, leading to a lack of loss to the revenue. This issue was considered in the context of the overall relief sought by the Petitioners.

4. Additionally, the Petitioners requested a writ to restrain the Respondent from taking coercive action for tax recovery during the pendency of the writ application. The Court, while disposing of the petition, directed that no coercive steps should be taken against the Petitioner during the case proceedings, ensuring a fair and just resolution.

5. The Court, in its judgment, highlighted the importance of upholding natural justice principles. It noted that despite statutory remedies, the Court could intervene if an order was found to be legally flawed. The Court emphasized the need for fair hearings and adequate reasoning in ex parte orders to prevent civil consequences. This aspect led to the Court's decision to quash the impugned orders and provide specific directions for the case's reconsideration, ensuring procedural fairness and legal compliance.