Tax Order Quashed for Procedural Lapses: Procedural Fairness Mandates Proper Hearing and Reasoned Decision Under GST Act

HC found procedural violations in tax order under Bihar GST Act. Ex parte proceedings without sufficient hearing were quashed. Court directed ten percent deposit, de-freezing bank accounts, and fresh proceedings with proper opportunity for representation. Assessing Authority instructed to pass reasoned order after following natural justice principles, with liberty to challenge the order through available legal remedies.

---

---

Issues:
1. Setting aside the order imposing tax, interest, and penalty under Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Setting aside the appellate order dismissing the appeal without considering petitioner's points.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing orders ex parte without sufficient reasons.
4. Quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.
5. Depositing ten percent of the total amount for appeal hearing.
6. Further depositing ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer.
7. De-freezing/de-attaching the bank account(s) of the petitioner.
8. Directing the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority.
9. Ensuring no coercive steps are taken during the pendency of the case.
10. Deciding the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice.
11. Passing a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned.
12. Cooperating in the proceedings and not taking unnecessary adjournments.
13. Deciding the case expeditiously and passing a speaking order with reasons.
14. Reserving liberty to challenge the order and take recourse to other remedies.
15. Conducting proceedings through digital mode if possible.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief to set aside the order imposing tax, interest, and penalty under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court noted that the appeal against this order was dismissed without considering the petitioner's points, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court found that the order was passed ex parte without providing sufficient time for the petitioner to represent their case, which was a violation of fair opportunity of hearing.

2. The High Court, after considering the arguments from both parties, decided to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.02.2021 and 05.03.2020. The court emphasized the importance of adjudicating the matter on facts and circumstances, even in ex parte proceedings. The orders were set aside due to the lack of assigning sufficient reasons and the failure to consider all issues of fact and law.

3. Regarding the deposit required for appeal hearing, the court accepted the petitioner's statement that ten percent of the total amount had already been deposited. However, the petitioner was directed to additionally deposit ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks. This deposit was deemed necessary without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the parties.

4. The court also directed the de-freezing/de-attaching of the petitioner's bank account(s) and instructed the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority on a specified date. It was emphasized that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case, and the case should be decided on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice.

5. Additionally, the Assessing Authority was directed to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned parties. The court reserved liberty for the petitioner to challenge the order and for parties to take recourse to other remedies available in accordance with the law. The proceedings were encouraged to be conducted through digital mode for efficiency.

---