2020 (12) TMI 1163 - HC - GST

Principles of Natural Justice - Validity of Demand notice - HELD THAT - As mutually agreed, the instant petition stands disposed of in terms of judgment M/S GAYA MARKETING VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, GAYA. 2020 (1) TMI 1355 - PATNA HIGH COURT and the directions contained therein shall also govern the instant case mutatis mutandi - It was held in the case that The order to be not assigning any reasons whatsoever. Also, it is noticed that prior to passing of the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the writ-petitioner. As such, there was gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing of the impugned order, which is hereby quashed. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought for quashing of an order under Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.
3. Liability of interest under section 50 of the act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief through a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the respondent, alleging it to be illegal and without jurisdiction under Sections 39, 46, 47, and 50 of the Bihar Goods And Service Tax Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner requested the quashing of a notice of demand issued on 05.10.2018. The petitioner argued that the impugned order and consequential notice of demand violated the principles of natural justice and section 46 of the act, which required a notice in form GSTR-3A before any action could be taken. The petitioner contended that as there was no tax liability due for the period in question, the respondent's actions were jurisdictionally erroneous.

2. The petitioner further sought a declaration that the interest liability under section 50 of the act should not be applicable when no tax liability was due. It was argued that without any admitted tax or demand of tax for the period from September 2017 to June 2018, the imposition of interest would be unjustified. The petitioner emphasized the need for adherence to procedural requirements and statutory provisions, highlighting the importance of following due process and principles of natural justice in tax matters.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested the disposal of the petition in line with a previous judgment dated 14.01.2020 in a similar case. The court, with no objection, disposed of the instant petition in accordance with the earlier judgment, thereby granting the relief sought by the petitioner. The court directed that the directions contained in the previous judgment would also apply to the present case, ensuring consistency and uniformity in the application of legal principles. Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of as part of the judgment.