2023 (3) TMI 788 - HC - GST

Tax Order Invalidated: Procedural Fairness Prevails, Assessing Authority Ordered to Conduct Fresh Hearing with Proper Reasoning

HC quashed an ex parte tax order under BGST Act due to lack of reasoning and violation of natural justice principles. The Court directed partial amount ... Validity of order issued u/s 73(9) with DRC-07 - Violation of principles of natural justice - allegation is that the impugned order is highly cryptic, misconceived, nonspeaking - ex-parte order - opportunity of hearing not granted - recovery of the amount of tax, interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- This Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it is opined that the order is bad in law. This is 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 reasons sufficient 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. We also find the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. The impugned order as also Summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 is set aside - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Quashing of ex parte order dated 09.01.2021 under BGST Act and BGST Rules2. Declaration of impugned order as cryptic and violative of natural justice3. Restraining coercive action by respondent during writ application4. Interference by the Court despite statutory remedyAnalysis:1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the ex parte order dated 09.01.2021 and the summary of the order issued under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules. The Court observed that the order was ex parte in nature and lacked reasons decipherable from the record. The authorities failed to adjudicate on all factual and legal issues, violating principles of natural justice. The Court decided to quash the impugned order based on these grounds.2. The petitioner also requested a declaration that the impugned order was cryptic and violated principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with the petitioner's contention, emphasizing the importance of fair opportunity of hearing and the need for sufficient time to represent one's case. The order was deemed to be passed in violation of natural justice, leading to civil consequences. The Court highlighted the necessity for authorities to consider all facts and circumstances, even in ex parte proceedings.3. The petitioner further sought to restrain the respondent from taking coercive action for recovery during the pendency of the writ application. The Court, after considering arguments from both sides, decided to dispose of the petition by setting aside the impugned order. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a percentage of the demanded amount before the Assessing Officer, without prejudice to the parties' rights. The Court also ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account and scheduled a hearing before the Assessing Authority.4. Despite the availability of statutory remedies, the Court asserted its authority to intervene when an order is deemed legally flawed. The Court justified its interference based on the violation of natural justice principles and the lack of reasoning in the ex parte order. The Court outlined various directives for the parties and the Assessing Authority to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution of the case, emphasizing the importance of affording adequate opportunities for all concerned parties.This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, detailing the Court's reasoning and directives for the parties involved.