Case Title | Kabeer Reality Private Limited VS Union of India |
Court | Patna High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice S. KUMAR |
Citation | 2021 (06) GSTPanacea 131 HC Patna Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7901 Of 2021 |
Judgement Date | 07-June-2021 |
The petitioner in this case initially focused on specific prayer clauses, while keeping the option open to pursue other prayers later if necessary. After an order was passed on March 8, 2020, attaching the petitioner’s bank account(s), the petitioner argued that the order was flawed for two main reasons: it violated principles of natural justice by not giving adequate time for the petitioner to present their case, and it was passed ex parte without sufficient reasons provided.
Despite the availability of statutory remedies like filing an appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, the court decided to intervene based on the perceived flaws in the order. It quashed the impugned order and associated summary, emphasizing the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and adequate reasoning in official decisions.
As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to deposit a portion of the demanded amount for the appeal process, with the understanding that any excess would be refunded. The court directed the immediate release of the attached bank account(s) and set a date for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer. Both parties were given opportunities to present their cases and provide necessary documents.
The Assessing Officer was instructed to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, with the expectation of expeditious resolution preferably within two months. The petitioner retained the liberty to challenge the order if needed, and both parties were allowed to explore other legal remedies. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and left all issues open for further consideration.
Finally, there was a request from the counsel for the matter to be addressed promptly.
The petitioner in this case initially narrowed down their plea to prayer clauses ‘l’ and ‘m’ while reserving the right to pursue other prayers at a later stage if necessary. Following the issuance of the contested order on March 8, 2020, the petitioner’s bank account(s) were also subjected to attachment.
The Revenue Department argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available, namely filing an appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. However, the court, after hearing arguments from both sides and examining the available records, determined that it could intervene despite the existence of statutory remedies. This decision was based on two primary reasons: first, the violation of principles of natural justice, particularly the inadequate opportunity for the petitioner to present their case; and second, the lack of sufficient reasoning provided in the ex parte order to justify the determination of the amount due from the assessee.
Given these grounds, the court disposed of the writ petition on mutually agreeable terms, which included:
1. Quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated March 8, 2020.
2. Accepting the petitioner’s statement regarding the deposit of 10% of the total amount as a prerequisite for appeal hearing.
3. Requiring the petitioner to additionally deposit ten percent of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer within four weeks.
4. Directing for the immediate defreezing/de-attaching of the petitioner’s bank account(s) related to the present petition.
5. Setting a date for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Officer.
6. Ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present essential documents and materials.
7. Mandating the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned parties.
8. Requesting the petitioner’s cooperation in the proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.
9. Setting a deadline for the Assessing Officer to decide the matter on its merits, preferably within two months from the petitioner’s appearance.
10. Granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order if needed.
11. Reserving liberty for both parties to pursue other remedies available in accordance with the law.
12. Expressing hope that any further actions taken by the petitioner will be handled expeditiously and in accordance with the law.
13. Not expressing any opinion on the merits, leaving all issues open for further consideration.
In summary, while the petitioner initially limited their relief to specific prayer clauses, the court intervened due to procedural irregularities and issued a set of directives to ensure fair proceedings and resolution of the matter in accordance with the law.
The petitioner initially focused their petition on specific prayer clauses, reserving the right to pursue additional prayers later. Following the issuance of an order on March 8, 2020, the petitioner’s bank account(s) were also attached. The Revenue suggested that the petitioner could appeal under the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but the court believed it could intervene if the order seemed legally flawed, especially due to violations of natural justice principles like insufficient time for representation and lack of reasoning in the ex parte order.
The court decided to quash the impugned order from March 8, 2020, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Supaul [With Purnea]. The petitioner had already deposited 10% of the total amount necessary for an appeal, and they agreed to deposit an additional 10% within four weeks. This deposit was subject to adjustment based on the final order. The court also ordered the immediate defreezing/de-attaching of the petitioner’s bank account(s) related to the proceedings.
The petitioner agreed to appear before the Assessing Officer, cooperate in proceedings, and not seek unnecessary adjournments. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after giving all parties adequate opportunity and to do so expeditiously, preferably within two months of the petitioner’s appearance. The petitioner retained the liberty to challenge the order and explore other legal remedies.
The court emphasized that it hadn’t expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and left all issues open. The proceedings were to be conducted with due diligence. The matter was to be addressed promptly, and both parties’ counsel urged the court to address the matter promptly.
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit:
Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law: