2022 (10) TMI 1128 - HC - GST

Validity of assessment order - ex-parte order - de-freezing/de-attachment the bank account - non-realization of amount from the bank account(s) of the petitioner in pursuance of the order of Assessment passed under section 73 of the Bihar Goods and Services Act, 2017 - 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 we say so, 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 does not assign any reasons sufficient, even decipherable from the record, as to how the officer could determine the amount due and payable by the assessee. The order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences. The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petitioner seeking relief from assessment order under Bihar Goods and Services Act, 2017 for violation of natural justice principles.

Analysis:
The petitioner prayed for various reliefs, including quashing the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Patna Central Division, for being assessed ex-parte in violation of natural justice principles. The impugned order directed a demand notice of Rs.35,21,625 under DRC-07 to be issued. The Revenue's counsel agreed to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the Assessing Authority without coercive steps during the case's pendency.

The High Court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the records, found the order to be bad in law due to two main reasons. Firstly, there was a violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner was not given sufficient time to present their case. Secondly, the order did not provide adequate reasons for determining the amount due and payable by the assessee. As a result, the Court decided to interfere and disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.

The Court's decision included several mutually agreeable terms. The petitioner was directed to deposit twenty percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks. The deposit was without prejudice to the parties' rights and subject to the Assessing Officer's order. The Court also ordered the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank account(s) and required the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority for further proceedings.

Moreover, the Assessing Authority was directed to decide the case on merits after complying with natural justice principles. The Court emphasized that all issues of fact and law should be addressed, even if the proceedings were ex parte. It was also highlighted that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the assessment process. The Assessing Authority was instructed to pass a speaking order with reasons assigned and supply copies to the parties. The petitioner was given liberty to challenge the order before the Court if needed, with other remedies available as per the law.

Overall, the Court hoped for a swift resolution of the case with due process and emphasized conducting proceedings through digital mode when possible. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition and any interlocutory applications, with the respondents tasked to communicate the order electronically to the appropriate authority.