2021 (12) TMI 167 - HC - GST

Court quashes ex parte order, mandates fair hearing, unfreezes bank accounts, and expedites proceedings.

M/a CEAT Limited Versus The Union of India, The Secretary Department of Revenue, The State of Bihar, The Secretary-Cum- Commissioner- Commercial, The Additional Commissioner State Tax (Appeals), The Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Patliputra Circle, Patna.

The court quashed the impugned ex parte order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, citing a lack of fair hearing and insufficient reasons. The petitioner ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - 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, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, 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. The impugned order order is set aside - petition disposed off. Issues:Petition for quashing impugned order dated 23.02.2021 by Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Patliputra Circle, Patna.Analysis:The petitioner sought various reliefs including quashing the demand order issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The court noted that the order was passed ex parte without affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The lack of sufficient reasons provided in the order was also highlighted. Consequently, the court decided to intervene despite the availability of statutory remedy.The court's decision included quashing the impugned order, directing the petitioner to deposit ten percent of the total amount and an additional ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer. The petitioner was also required to appear before the Assessing Authority and cooperate in the proceedings. The Assessing Authority was instructed to decide the case on merits, affording all parties a fair hearing and passing a speaking order with reasons.Furthermore, the court directed for de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank account(s) and ensured that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the case's pendency. The Assessing Authority was mandated to expedite the process and provide a copy of the order to all parties. The liberty to challenge the order and to seek other available remedies was also granted.The court emphasized conducting proceedings through digital mode due to the ongoing pandemic. The judgment left all issues open, refrained from expressing any opinion on merits, and encouraged prompt handling of any future remedies sought by the parties. The interlocutory applications were also disposed of, and the respondents were tasked with communicating the order to the appropriate authority electronically.