Case Law Details
Vivek Kumar Mittal Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
The case of Vivek Kumar Mittal Vs State of Bihar in the Patna High Court revolved around GST orders that were passed without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. This article delves deep into the legal intricacies of this landmark case, discussing its implications for future GST cases and the importance of due process in legal matters.
Background
Vivek Kumar Mittal filed a petition against the State of Bihar, challenging various orders that levied tax and penalties under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act, 2017. The petitioner claimed that these orders were passed without providing him with a fair opportunity to be heard. The petitioner also argued that the orders were unlawful as they did not consider the pre-conditions for claiming input tax credit, among other things.
Court’s Observations
The court found that the impugned orders were indeed passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that an individual should be given a fair chance to represent his case before any form of penal action is taken. Hence, the High Court quashed the orders and even lifted the attachment on the petitioner’s bank account.
Remand to Assessing Officer
The matter has been sent back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The court laid down several key directives, including that the Assessing Officer should pass a new order only after giving adequate opportunities to all concerned parties. The case should be decided on its merits, complying with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner is also allowed to add additional materials to the record if required.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF PATNA HIGH COURT
Petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-
i) the order dated 02.02.2021 (as contained in Annexure -3 series) passed by the respondent no. 2 raising demand of tax and penalty under Section 73 (9) of the BGST Act, 2017 without grant of an opportunity of being heard illegal and without jurisdiction?
ii) the order dated 02.02.20 (as contained in Annexure -5 series) passed by the respondent no. 2 raising demand of tax and penalty under Section 73 (9) of the BGST Act, 2017 raising demand on account of tax and penalty without taking notice of the fact that the pre-conditions for claim of input tax credit was satisfied and the return was filed by the supplier within the time frame stipulated under Section 16 (4) of the BGST Act and that in view thereof the whole of such demand is illegal and without
iii) the notice dated 15.02.2022( as contained in Annexure -6) issued by respondent no. 2 attaching his bank account be quashed.
iv) for granting any other relief (s) to which the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to.
Shri Vivek Prasad, learned G.P.-7, under instructions, states that the statement submitted by the petitioner, annexed as Annexure-5 series, Page 28-89, were perused by the authority and now the amount stands reconciled with the authority satisfied of having received the amount in terms thereof.
Hence, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 (Annexure-3 series) as also consequential order dated 02.02.2021 (Annexure-4 Page 27) needs to be quashed and set aside with the matter being remanded to the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh, in view of the statements made supra and having been satisfied of the correctness of the statement of accounts furnished by the petitioner (Annexure-5 series, Page 28-89).
Consequently, order dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure-6) whereby the petitioner’s bank account stands attached, is also quashed and set aside.
As such, we dispose of the present writ petition in the following mutually agreeable terms:
(a) Petitioner undertakes to appear before the Assessing Officer on 21.03.2022 at 10:30 A.M.
(b) The Assessing Officer shall pass a fresh order only after affording adequate opportunity to all concerned, including the writ petitioner;
(c) The Assessing Officer shall decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice;
(d) Opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the parties to place on record additional materials, if so required and desired;
(e) Petitioner through learned counsel undertakes to fully cooperate in such proceedings and not take unnecessary adjournment;
(f) The Assessing Officer shall decide the case on merits expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner;
(g) The Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order assigning reasons, copy whereof shall be supplied to the parties;
(h) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order before this Court, if so required and desired;
(i) Equally, liberty reserved to the parties to take recourse to such other remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;
(j) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law, with a reasonable dispatch;
(j) We have not expressed any opinion on merits and all issues are left open;
(k) Needless to add, any amount found to have been paid or recovered from the petitioner, in excess of what was due and payable, shall be refunded/adjusted against future demands.
The instant petition sands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
Learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to communicate the order to the appropriate authority through electronic mode.
