9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 288 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - sufficient opportunity for hearing not provided - ex-parte order - violation of principles of natural justice - 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.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of orders dated 03.03.2020 and 25.02.2021 under Bihar Goods And Services Tax Rules, 2017. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice and ex parte orders. 3. Request for refund and restraining coercive recovery. 4. Directions for deposit and de-freezing of bank accounts. 5. Compliance with principles of natural justice and expeditious decision-making. Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of Orders The petitioner sought the quashing of multiple orders passed by various authorities under the Bihar Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court, after considering the arguments, found that the impugned orders were ex parte in nature and lacked sufficient reasons, violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside all the orders dated 03.03.2020 and 25.02.2021, along with related annexures. Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice The Court emphasized the importance of affording a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and noted that insufficient time was given to represent the case adequately. The ex parte nature of the orders, without clear reasons, was considered a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Court intervened, despite statutory remedies, to rectify these procedural irregularities and ensure a fair process for the petitioner. Issue 3: Request for Refund and Restraining Coercive Recovery The petitioner requested the refund of the amount already recovered and sought to restrain the respondent from taking coercive recovery measures. The Court directed the respondent to refund any excess deposit made by the petitioner within a specified timeframe. Additionally, coercive recovery actions were prohibited during the pendency of the case, ensuring the petitioner's financial interests were safeguarded. Issue 4: Directions for Deposit and De-freezing of Bank Accounts The Court outlined specific directions regarding the deposit of amounts and de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts. Conditions were set for depositing a percentage of the total amount and an additional sum before the Assessing Officer. The immediate de-freezing of bank accounts attached in the proceedings was ordered, providing relief to the petitioner in financial matters. Issue 5: Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice and Expeditious Decision-making Emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness, the Court directed the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice. The parties were granted opportunities to present essential documents, and the case was to be expedited, ideally within two months from the petitioner's appearance. The Assessing Authority was instructed to pass a speaking order with reasons and provide copies to all concerned parties. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment addressed various issues related to procedural fairness, quashing of orders, refund requests, and directions for expeditious decision-making, ensuring a fair and transparent legal process for the petitioner.
|
