Facts of the Case
M/s S.S. Diagnostics and Surgical, a proprietorship
firm, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 31.03.2022 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna North Circle, Patna, under Section
73(9) of the Bihar GST Act, 2017, along with the consequential Summary
of Order/Demand Notice in Form GST DRC-07 for the tax period 2018-19.
The petitioner contended that the impugned
proceedings were contrary to the principles of natural justice, alleging
that the order had been passed without proper opportunity to represent its
case. The challenged order was ex parte in nature. The petitioner also
sought protection against recovery of the disputed demand during pendency of
the proceedings.
The High Court examined the record and found that
sufficient opportunity had not been afforded to the petitioner and that the ex
parte order did not assign reasons sufficient to show how the amount due and
payable by the assessee had been determined.
Issues
Involved
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under Section 73(9) of
the Bihar GST Act, 2017, together with the consequential GST DRC-07
demand notice, was sustainable when the petitioner had not been
afforded sufficient opportunity to represent its case.
- Whether an ex parte adjudication order imposing tax consequences
could survive when it failed to disclose sufficient or decipherable
reasons for determination of the amount allegedly due and payable.
- Whether the High Court could exercise its writ jurisdiction despite
availability of a statutory remedy, where the impugned order was ex
facie affected by violation of principles of natural justice.
- Whether the adjudicating authority was required to deal with all
relevant issues of fact and law even where proceedings were conducted ex
parte.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section
73(9) and the consequential Form GST DRC-07, principally contending
that:
- the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice;
- sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing and representation
was not afforded;
- the order was ex parte in nature;
- penalty and interest consequences could not validly be imposed
without proper opportunity to contest the proceedings;
- coercive recovery of the disputed demand should not be undertaken
during pendency of the challenge; and
- the impugned order and consequential demand notice deserved to be
quashed.
Respondents’
Arguments / Revenue’s Stand
Learned counsel for the Revenue stated before the
High Court that the Revenue had no objection to remand of the matter to the
Assessing Authority for fresh decision.
The Revenue further stated that:
- the matter could be decided afresh on merits; and
- during pendency of the proceedings, no coercive steps would
be taken against the petitioner.
The High Court accepted and took this statement on
record.
Court’s
Findings
The High Court held that the existence of a
statutory remedy did not preclude interference in writ jurisdiction
where the impugned order was ex facie bad in law.
The Court recorded significant findings that:
- there was a violation of principles of natural justice,
particularly because no sufficient time was afforded to the petitioner to
represent its case;
- the order was ex parte in nature;
- the order did not assign reasons sufficient, or even decipherable
from the record, to explain how the officer determined the amount due and
payable by the assessee;
- an ex parte order passed in violation of natural justice entailed civil
consequences; and
- the authorities had not adjudicated the matter upon the attending
facts and circumstances.
The Court further clarified that all issues of
fact and law ought to be dealt with even if the proceedings are ex parte in nature.
Court Order
/ Final Directions
The High Court disposed of the writ petition on
mutually agreeable terms and issued the following material directions:
- The impugned order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner of State Taxes, Patna North Circle, Patna, and the
consequential GST DRC-07 demand notice for 2018-19 were quashed and set
aside.
- The petitioner undertook to deposit 20% of the demand amount
before the Assessing Officer within eight weeks.
- Such deposit was directed to remain without prejudice to the
respective rights and contentions of the parties and subject to the
fresh order of the Assessing Officer.
- If the petitioner had already deposited an amount up to 20%, the
same was to be set off against the required deposit.
- Any excess deposit was directed to be refunded within two months
from the date of passing of the order.
- The Court directed immediate de-freezing/de-attachment of the
petitioner’s bank account(s), if attached with reference to the
proceedings forming the subject matter of the writ petition.
- The petitioner undertook to appear before the Assessing Authority
on 30.11.2022 at 10:30 A.M., if possible through digital mode.
- The Assessing Authority was directed to decide the matter afresh
on merits after complying with principles of natural justice.
- The parties were to be afforded an opportunity of hearing and to
place all essential documents and materials on record, if required and
desired.
- During pendency of the assessment proceedings, no coercive steps
were to be taken against the petitioner.
- A fresh order could be passed only after providing adequate
opportunity to all concerned, including the writ petitioner.
- The petitioner was required to fully cooperate and avoid
unnecessary adjournments.
- The matter was to be decided expeditiously, preferably within
two months from the petitioner’s appearance.
- The Assessing Authority was required to pass a speaking order
assigning reasons and supply a copy to the parties.
- Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge the fresh
order, if required and desired.
- All issues were expressly left open, and the Court did not
express any opinion on the merits.
- Proceedings were, if possible, to be conducted through digital
mode.
Important
Clarification
The judgment provides an important clarification
concerning GST adjudication under Section 73:
Even where proceedings are ex parte, the
adjudicating authority must deal with all relevant issues of fact and law and
must pass a reasoned order showing the basis on which the amount due and
payable has been determined.
The ruling further clarifies that availability of
an alternative or statutory remedy does not necessarily bar writ interference
where the impugned order is ex facie unsustainable because of violation of
natural justice, inadequate opportunity of hearing, absence of sufficient
reasons, and failure to adjudicate the relevant facts and legal issues.
It is also important that the Court did not
decide the substantive tax liability on merits. The demand order was set
aside on the identified procedural and adjudicatory deficiencies, and all
merits were left open for fresh consideration.
Sections /
Provisions Involved
Section 73(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 — statutory provision under which the impugned
adjudication order was passed.
Form GST DRC-07 —
consequential summary of the order/demand notice challenged before the High
Court.
Principles of Natural Justice — particularly adequate opportunity to represent the case, fair
hearing, and reasoned adjudication.
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction — exercised by the High Court despite the statutory remedy because the
Court found grounds warranting interference with an ex facie legally defective
order.
Link to download the order -
https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783317983_1101compressed.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment