High Court quashes Bihar GST Act orders, emphasizing fair opportunity, compliance, and natural justice

The High Court quashed orders under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to lack of fair opportunity and insufficient reasons, restraining coercive recovery during the writ application. Recovery actions were deemed illegal for non-compliance with mandated conditions, leading to a refund request with deposit conditions. Compliance issues with statutory provisions were noted, emphasizing natural justice principles and fair hearing opportunities. The court provided directives for future proceedings, stressing cooperation, expeditious decision-making, and liberty to challenge orders, allowing digital mode proceedings during the pandemic and reserving other prayers for appropriate proceedings.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Quashing of orders dated 09.02.2020 and 03.03.2021 under Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Legality of recovery actions by Respondent No. 3.
3. Coercive recovery restraint during pendency of writ application.
4. Refund of recovered amount under section 79 of Bihar act 2017.
5. Compliance with section 75(5) of Bihar act 2017.
6. Violation of principles of natural justice.
7. Ex parte assessment order without sufficient reasons.
8. Disposal of writ petition and appellate order.
9. Deposit conditions for hearing appeal.
10. De-attaching bank accounts and future proceedings.
11. Fresh order by Assessing Officer with adequate opportunity.
12. Cooperation and expeditious decision-making.
13. Liberty to challenge order and take other remedies.
14. Conducting proceedings during the pandemic.
15. Adjudication of other prayers in appropriate proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief for quashing orders dated 09.02.2020 and 03.03.2021 under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing illegality and violation of natural justice. The High Court found that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present their case and the assessment order lacked sufficient reasons, leading to civil consequences. Consequently, the court quashed both orders.

2. The court addressed the legality of the recovery actions by Respondent No. 3 under section 79(1)(c) of the Bihar act 2017. It was noted that the recovery was deemed illegal and without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with the conditions mandated in the proviso to section 78 of the Bihar act 2017. The court restrained Respondent No. 3 from making coercive recovery during the pendency of the writ application.

3. The petitioner requested a writ for the refund of the amount already recovered under section 79 of the Bihar act 2017. The court directed the petitioner to deposit ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks, with the understanding that any excess deposit would be refunded within two months.

4. Compliance with section 75(5) of the Bihar act 2017 was raised as an issue. The court declared the impugned order to be against the provision of law, which allows at least three opportunities for the petitioner in case of a liability determination order.

5. Violation of principles of natural justice, particularly fair opportunity of hearing, was a significant concern. The court emphasized that ex parte assessment orders must provide sufficient reasons and fair hearing opportunities. Due to these violations, the court disposed of the writ petition.

6. The court outlined various directives for future proceedings, including the appearance of the petitioner before the Assessing Officer, cooperation in proceedings, expeditious decision-making, and liberty to challenge the order or seek other remedies as per the law. The court also allowed digital mode proceedings during the pandemic and reserved the adjudication of other prayers for appropriate proceedings.

---