Officer's ex-parte order violated natural justice principles by denying fair hearing opportunity and providing insufficient reasoning for assessment

The Patna HC held that despite availability of statutory remedy, the court can interfere when an order is bad in law. The court found violations of natural justice principles where petitioner was denied fair hearing opportunity and insufficient time to present case. The ex-parte order lacked sufficient reasons explaining how the officer determined the amount due from assessee. Since the ex-parte order violated natural justice principles and entailed civil consequences, the petition was disposed of in petitioner's favor.

---

---

Issues:
Petition for quashing assessment order, demand order, coercive action, refund, fresh assessment order, legality of assessment order.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought relief to quash assessment and demand orders for the financial year 2019-20, totaling Rs. 32,00,296/-, imposed ex parte by Respondent No. 6. The petition also requested a mandamus to prevent coercive actions, refund of seized amount, fresh assessment based on GSTR-9, and challenging the legality of the assessment order.

The High Court, after hearing both parties, found grounds to interfere despite statutory remedies. The Court noted violations of natural justice principles, lack of opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, and the ex parte order lacking reasons for determining the liability. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 06.03.2021 and 06.02.2021, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand amount before the Assessing Officer within eight weeks.

Furthermore, the Court ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account, scheduled a meeting with the Assessing Authority, emphasized compliance with natural justice principles, and prohibited coercive actions during assessment. The Assessing Authority was instructed to adjudicate all factual and legal issues, provide hearing opportunities, and deliver a reasoned order within two months of the petitioner's appearance.

The Court reserved liberty for the petitioner to challenge the order, cooperate in proceedings, and expedite the case within two months. The Assessing Authority was mandated to provide a speaking order with reasons, ensuring parties receive copies. The judgment left all issues open, allowed digital proceedings, and reserved rights for further legal recourse, emphasizing prompt handling of future remedies.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition and interlocutory applications, instructing the respondents to communicate the order electronically to the appropriate authority. The judgment aimed to uphold natural justice, ensure fair assessment procedures, and provide a transparent and lawful resolution to the dispute.

---