Mukhiya Jee Ply And Hardware VS The State Of Bihar

The case revolves around the petitioner, whose bank account(s) were attached following an order passed on February 2nd, 2020 by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes in Munger under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. Additionally, a summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 was issued on the same date. Subsequently, the petitioner lodged an appeal, labeled Appeal Case No. MGGST 34/20-21, against this order. However, this appeal was dismissed on March 3rd, 2021 by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) in Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, citing delay as the sole reason.

In response, the petitioner sought relief through legal recourse. The Revenue’s counsel opposed the petitioner’s plea, arguing that there were alternative legal avenues available for remedy. After considering arguments from both sides, the court had to make a decision.

The summary outlines a legal case where the petitioner’s bank account was attached following an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner then appealed this decision, which was rejected on grounds of delay by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes. The Revenue’s counsel argued against the petitioner’s plea, citing the availability of alternative remedies.

However, the court, after considering arguments from both sides and examining the records, concluded that it could intervene if it found the order to be legally flawed, despite the existence of statutory remedies. The court highlighted two main reasons for its decision: firstly, the violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner wasn’t given sufficient time to present their case, and secondly, the lack of adequate reasoning in the ex parte assessment order. Such orders, the court noted, carry civil consequences and thus should adhere to principles of natural justice.

Based on these grounds, the court decided to dispose of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes.

The case involves the petitioner challenging an order dated February 2, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes in Munger Circle, Munger, under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This order resulted in the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account(s). Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was rejected on March 3, 2021, by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals) in Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, citing a delay in filing.

The petitioner argued that despite the availability of alternative remedies, the court could intervene if the order was found to be flawed. The court agreed, citing two main reasons for intervention: first, the violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of sufficient time for the petitioner to present their case; and second, the ex parte nature of the assessment order, which failed to provide adequate reasons for determining the amount due from the petitioner.

In light of these reasons, the court decided to quash the impugned orders from February 2, 2020, and March 3, 2021. Additionally, it was agreed that ten percent of the total amount, a prerequisite for hearing the appeal, had already been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner further undertook to deposit an additional ten percent of the demand raised within four weeks. These deposits were made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party and were subject to the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

Ultimately, if it was determined that the petitioner owed any amount, the deposited sums would be adjusted accordingly. This resolution was reached by the court based on the acknowledgment of procedural irregularities and the need to uphold principles of natural justice.

The case at hand revolves around an order issued on February 2nd, 2020, by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Munger Circle, Munger, under Section 74 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order led to the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account(s). Subsequently, an appeal was filed by the petitioner against this order, marked as Appeal Case No. MGGST 34/20-21, which was rejected on March 3rd, 2021, by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, citing delay as the primary reason.

Despite the availability of statutory remedies, the court considers intervening in cases where it perceives a legal flaw in the order. In this instance, the court finds two significant reasons for intervention: Firstly, there was a violation of natural justice principles, as the petitioner was not given sufficient time to present their case. Secondly, the assessment order was passed ex parte, lacking clear and adequate reasoning for determining the amount owed by the petitioner.

Based on these grounds, the court decides to:

a) Quash the impugned order dated February 2nd, 2020, along with the appellate order dated March 3rd, 2021. b) Acknowledge that ten percent of the total amount required for appeal has already been deposited by the petitioner. c) Require the petitioner to additionally deposit ten percent of the demand raised by the Assessing Officer within four weeks. d) Specify that this deposit does not affect the rights and contentions of either party and is subject to the Assessing Officer’s order. e) Schedule a hearing with the petitioner’s Assessing Officer on July 26th, 2021, at 10:30 A.M., preferably through digital means. f) Ensure both parties have the opportunity to present essential documents and materials during the hearing. g) Instruct the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh order only after providing adequate opportunity to all concerned parties, including the petitioner.

In essence, the court intervenes due to procedural irregularities and directs a fair and just process moving forward, ensuring that the petitioner’s rights are upheld and proper legal procedures are followed.

 Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: