2021 (6) TMI 765 - HC - GST

High Court Quashes Orders, Allows Further Proceedings

Pankaj Sharma Versus The Union of India, The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of State Tax, Patna, The Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Saran, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Saran,

The High Court quashed the order-in-appeal and assessment order, directing the petitioner to appear before the authority for further proceedings after ... Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed only on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the certified copy of the impugned order in time - validity of Section 16(4) of the Central / Bihar Goods and Service Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that the impugned order dated 28/01/2021 passed by the respondent no. 4, the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Saran Division, Chhapra, cryptic in nature, needs to be set aside only on the ground that it does not even contain the reasons necessarily required for making the order self-explainable and/or comprehensible. The Appellate Authority summarily dismissed the appeal without assigning any cogent reason, thus, seriously prejudicing the petitioner’s cause and case - It is stated before this Court that the petitioner has already deposited 100 per cent of the amount making the appeal mature to be heard on merits. Impugned order passed by the respondent no. 4, the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Saran Division, Chhapra stands set aside - Petitioner shall appear before the appropriate authority on 16th of June, 2021 at 10:30 A.M., if possible through digital mode - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Quashing of order-in-appeal and assessment order2. Declaration of certain sections and rules as ultra vires3. Stay on demand notice4. Quashing of attachment order5. Disposal of petition and interlocutory applicationsQuashing of Order-in-Appeal and Assessment Order:The petitioner sought a writ to quash the order-in-appeal dated 28/01/2021 and the assessment order-in-original dated 06/03/2020, along with the consequential demand notice for tax, interest, and penalty. The High Court noted that the impugned order lacked essential reasons for dismissal, thus prejudicing the petitioner's case. The petitioner had deposited the full amount, making the appeal ripe for consideration on merits. The Standing Counsel had no objection to remanding the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to appear before the authority for further proceedings.Declaration of Certain Sections and Rules as Ultra Vires:The petitioner also sought a declaration that Section 16(4) of the Central/Bihar Goods and Service Act, 2017, and Rule 61(5) of the Central/Bihar Goods and Service Rules, 2017, were ultra vires certain provisions of the Constitution and the CGST/BGST Act, 2017. However, the High Court did not express any opinion on the merits of this issue, leaving it open for future consideration.Stay on Demand Notice:Additionally, the petitioner requested a stay on the demand notice issued for the tax amount, interest, and penalty. The High Court did not grant a specific stay but directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within two months, while granting the parties the opportunity to present essential documents.Quashing of Attachment Order:The petitioner sought the quashing of an attachment order issued by respondent no. 5, arguing it was without competence and jurisdiction. The High Court did not delve into the merits of this issue but directed the withdrawal of the attachment order and the unfreezing of the petitioner's bank accounts, restraining the respondents from taking coercive action.Disposal of Petition and Interlocutory Applications:The High Court disposed of the petition based on mutually agreeable terms, including setting aside the impugned order, providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present documents, and emphasizing cooperation and expeditious resolution. The court reserved liberty for the parties to explore further legal remedies and left all issues open for future adjudication. The proceedings were to be conducted, if possible, through digital mode during the pandemic, with liberty for the petitioner to challenge the order if necessary. The interlocutory applications were also disposed of accordingly.