2022 (12) TMI 956 - HC - GST

Seeking direction to the respondent to hear the case treating one case for allowing ITC even ITC non-reflection transaction in GSTR-2A - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view 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. There is violation of principles of natural justice, i.e. Fair opportunity of hearing. No sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to represent his case - 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. The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of appeal against assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice and ex parte orders.
3. Remand of the case to the Assessing Authority for fresh decision.
4. Directions for depositing amounts and de-freezing bank accounts.
5. Compliance with principles of natural justice during proceedings.
6. Timeframe for decision by the Assessing Authority and liberty to challenge the order.

Analysis:
The High Court of Patna, comprising Honourable Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Honourable Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy, addressed the issues arising from the rejection of the petitioner's appeal against assessment orders dated 07.03.2020 and 10.02.2021 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. The court noted that the orders appeared to be ex parte in nature, leading to a lack of fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case. The court emphasized the importance of adherence to natural justice principles and the need for sufficient reasons in determining the amount due from the assessee.

The Revenue's counsel agreed to remand the matter to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision, ensuring no coercive steps against the petitioner during the proceedings. The court, after considering the record and arguments, intervened despite the statutory remedy, citing violations of natural justice principles and inadequate adjudication of facts and circumstances. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to deposit specified amounts for the appeal's hearing.

Furthermore, the court instructed the Assessing Authority to decide the case on merits, providing opportunities for both parties to present essential documents and materials. The petitioner was required to cooperate in the proceedings and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The court specified a timeframe for the decision, emphasizing the need for a speaking order with reasons assigned. Additionally, the order allowed liberty to challenge the decision and reserved rights for other available legal remedies.

The court concluded by expressing hope for timely resolution of any challenges or further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of conducting proceedings through digital mode where possible. The judgment highlighted that no opinion on merits was expressed, leaving all issues open for future consideration. Finally, the court disposed of the petition and any related interlocutory applications, with the respondents undertaking to communicate the order electronically to the appropriate authority.