GREENLINE SERVICES Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the following relief/s :- It is brought to our notice that vide impugned order dtd. 24/9/2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 namely the Additional Commissioner of State Taxes (Appeals), Purnea Division, Purnea, in Appeal No. (ARN) AD100621000248V, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dtd. 6/3/2021 passed by Respondent No. 3, namely the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes, Purnea, in GSTIN 10AFAPM4257Q1ZC, under Sec. 73 of BGST Act, 2017; and summary of order dtd. 6/3/2021 in Form GST DRC-07 has been rejected by a cryptic, misconceived and non-speaking order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Revenue, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessing Authority for deciding the case afresh. Also, the case shall be decided on merits. Also, during pendency of the case, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. Statement accepted and taken on record.

(3.) However, having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record made available, we are of the considered view that this Court, notwithstanding the statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, we form an opinion that the order is bad in law. This we say so, 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 sufficient reasons 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; (c) We also find the authorities not to have adjudicated the matter on the attending facts and circumstances. All issues of fact and law ought to have been dealt with, even if the proceedings were ex parte in nature.