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

The court quashed the impugned ex parte order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, citing a lack of fair hearing and insufficient reasons. The petitioner was directed to deposit a percentage of the total amount, cooperate in proceedings, and the Assessing Authority was instructed to decide the case on merits with a fair hearing. The petitioner's bank account(s) were to be unfrozen, no coercive steps taken during the case, and proceedings were to be expedited digitally. The judgment refrained from expressing opinions on merits, encouraged prompt handling of future remedies, and disposed of interlocutory applications.

---

---

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.

---