Forever Living Trading VS The State of Bihar

reasons. Firstly, the impugned order was passed ex parte, meaning the petitioner was not given the opportunity to present their case. Secondly, the rejection of the appeal solely on the grounds of being time-barred and non-payment of a certain amount of tax seems unjustified, especially when the Revenue itself is open to a fresh consideration of the case on its merits.

The petitioner seeks relief from the court against the order dated October 23, 2021, issued by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes. This order dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against an earlier decision made on June 20, 2019, by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, along with a summary of demand issued on September 23, 2020. The rejection was based primarily on two grounds: the appeal was considered time-barred, and there was non-compliance with the requirement to pay 10% of the tax amount.

The Revenue’s counsel expresses willingness to have the matter remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh examination on its merits and agrees not to pursue coercive measures against the petitioner during the case’s pendency.

However, the court finds it within its jurisdiction to intervene, despite the availability of statutory remedies, especially when it perceives a clear legal flaw in the order. In this case, the absence of a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and the seemingly unjustifiable basis for rejecting the appeal prompt the court to consider intervention.

In conclusion, the court acknowledges the Revenue’s willingness for a fresh assessment but asserts its authority to review the order independently. This suggests the possibility of the court providing relief to the petitioner, notwithstanding the statutory procedures in place.

The case in question revolves around an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated June 20, 2019, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, Special Circle, Patna, regarding GSTIN/ID 10AABCF6616PIZM. The appeal, along with a summary of demand dated September 23, 2020, was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Central Division, Patna, on October 23, 2021. The rejection was primarily based on two grounds: the appeal was considered barred by limitation and there was non-payment of 10% of the tax amount. Importantly, these orders were passed ex parte, meaning the petitioner was not present during the proceedings.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the Revenue stated that they had no objection if the matter was sent back to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on its merits. It was also agreed that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the case. This statement was accepted and recorded.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties and examining the available records, the court concluded that it was not precluded from intervening in the case despite the existence of statutory remedies. This was primarily because the court found two significant issues with the impugned order. Firstly, there was a violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given sufficient time to present their case. Secondly, the ex parte nature of the order lacked adequate reasoning, making it difficult to determine how the assessing officer arrived at the amount due from the petitioner.

Due to these flaws, the court decided to dispose of the writ petition on mutually agreeable terms. It quashed the impugned order along with the orders from the Deputy Commissioner and the summary of demand. Additionally, the petitioner was required to deposit twenty percent of the demanded amount before the Assessing Officer within four weeks. Importantly, this deposit was made without prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of both parties and was subject to further proceedings.

The case in question involves an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated 20th June 2019, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of State Taxes, as well as a subsequent summary of demand dated 23rd September 2020. These were both rejected by the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeal), Central Division, Patna, in an order dated 23rd October 2021, citing limitations and non-payment of tax, with the orders being ex parte.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the Revenue expressed willingness for the matter to be remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision on merits, with an assurance that no coercive actions would be taken against the petitioner in the meantime. This statement was accepted by the court.

Upon reviewing the case and considering the arguments presented, the court concluded that it retains the authority to intervene, especially when it perceives a violation of legal principles. In this instance, the court found two significant reasons for interference: firstly, the violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of adequate time given to the petitioner to present their case; and secondly, the absence of any discernible reasoning behind the ex parte order, which is essential for determining the amount due from the assessee.

Based on these grounds, the court disposed of the writ petition with mutually agreeable terms. It quashed the impugned orders and directed the petitioner to deposit twenty percent of the demanded amount before the Assessing Officer within four weeks, subject to further orders. The court also ordered the immediate de-freezing or de-attaching of the petitioner’s bank account if attached during the proceedings.

Furthermore, the petitioner was instructed to appear before the Assessing Authority on a specified date, either physically or digitally, and the Authority was directed to decide the case on its merits while adhering to the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized the importance of addressing all relevant facts and legal issues, even in ex parte proceedings, and ensured that the petitioner would be granted an opportunity for a fair hearing throughout the process.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: