Great Eastern Hire Purchase Private Limited Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
Summary: The Patna High Court, after passing a reasoned judgment dated 06.05.2025 setting aside Annexures ‘P4’ and ‘P5’, considered the remaining issue of interest and cost payable to Great Eastern Hire Purchase Private Limited. Notices had earlier been issued to Respondent No. 5, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Gandhi Maidan Circle, Patna, and Respondent No. 6, the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Patna West Division, Patna, regarding their conduct in relation to the Court’s judgment in SIS Cash Services Private Limited vs. Union of India in CWJC No. 6514 of 2021 dated 24.01.2024. Respondent No. 5 stated that the order dated 24.08.2023 was passed after verification from the GST—BO Portal and Back office and that the order dated 12.09.2019 had been passed under Section 73 of the Central/Bihar Goods and Services Act, 2017. Respondent No. 5 also stated that the judgment in SIS Cash Services had not been brought to her notice, while Respondent No. 6 stated in his show cause that the law laid down in SIS Cash Services was never brought to his knowledge. Respondent No. 6 also explained that the petitioner had filed a statutory appeal on 30.01.2024 against the order dated 12.09.2019 and had sought admission under Notification No. 53 of 2023 CGST dated 02.11.2023, but the appeal was rejected on the ground that the notification covered orders under Sections 73 and 74 and not Section 62. Both respondents tendered unconditional apology and disclosed reasons for their actions. As no rejoinder was filed by the petitioner, the statements in the show causes remained uncontroverted, and the Court accepted the reasons shown by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and held that the contempt notice was not required to be proceeded with. On the issue of interest, the learned Advocate General, on instruction, offered simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of recovery of the amount till the date of refund, which was accepted by the petitioner. The Court accordingly directed the State respondents to pay simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of refund within six weeks. Since the Court had noticed that the recovery was made illegally and had resulted in litigation, it further directed payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within the same period. The Court also observed that it was open to the State Government to recover the interest and cost from the erring officials, if so desired, and disposed of the writ application accordingly.
