2021 (10) TMI 474 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - orders appeared to be ex parte in nature - 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. Impugned order set aside - petition disposed off.

Issues:
1. Quashing of communication in form GST APL-04 dated 09.04.2021.
2. Quashing of order dated 09.02.2021 imposing tax, interest, and penalty.
3. Restraining respondents from making recovery.
4. Declaration that the order dated 09.04.2021 is cryptic and in violation of the Bihar Act, 2017.
5. Silence of respondent No. 3 on rectification application.
6. Interference by the Court due to violation of natural justice.
7. Disposal of the writ petition.

1. Quashing of Communication in Form GST APL-04 dated 09.04.2021:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the communication in form GST APL-04 dated 09.04.2021. The High Court noted that the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 09.02.2021 was rejected through this communication. The Court found the orders to be ex parte in nature. The Court intervened due to the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing. The order was deemed bad in law as it did not provide sufficient reasons for determining the amount due, leading to civil consequences. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 09.04.2021.

2. Quashing of Order dated 09.02.2021:
The petitioner also sought to quash the order dated 09.02.2021, which imposed tax, interest, and penalty. The Court found this order to be ex parte in nature and lacking in sufficient reasons, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Court set aside the order dated 09.02.2021 along with the communication in form GST APL-04 dated 09.04.2021.

3. Restraining Respondents from Making Recovery:
The petitioner requested restraining the respondents from making recovery based on the impugned orders. The Court did not specifically address this issue in its judgment, but the quashing of the orders would naturally prevent any further recovery actions based on those orders.

4. Declaration of Cryptic Nature of the Order dated 09.04.2021:
The petitioner sought a declaration that the order dated 09.04.2021 was cryptic and in violation of the Bihar Act, 2017. The Court did not delve into the specifics of this issue in the judgment but focused on the violation of natural justice as the primary reason for intervention.

5. Silence of Respondent No. 3 on Rectification Application:
The petitioner raised concerns about the silence of respondent No. 3 on the rectification application. The Court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue in the judgment but highlighted the violation of natural justice and lack of reasons in the impugned orders as grounds for intervention.

6. Interference by the Court due to Violation of Natural Justice:
The Court emphasized that despite the statutory remedy, it could interfere when an order is deemed bad in law. In this case, the Court intervened due to the violation of natural justice principles, particularly the lack of a fair opportunity of hearing and insufficient reasons provided in the ex parte orders. The Court disposed of the writ petition based on these grounds.

7. Disposal of the Writ Petition:
The Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned orders, setting conditions for the petitioner regarding deposit amounts, directing de-freezing of bank accounts, scheduling appearances before the Assessing Authority, and ensuring a fair process with opportunities for all parties. The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner and parties to challenge the order and take recourse to other remedies as per the law. The Court did not express any opinion on merits, leaving all issues open for further consideration.

← Previous Next →