TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order is bad in law. This is 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. Petition disposed off. - Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8393 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2021 - HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority passed in form GST APL 04 dated 26.02.2021 wherein a demand of tax of ₹ 22,53,341.00/-, interest of ₹ 120,013/- and penalty of ₹ 2,25,000/- totalling to ₹ 25,98,687/- for IGST, CGST and SGST has been confirmed against the Petitioner. d. Forissuingwrit/writs, order/orders including thewrit of mandamus after remanding the case back to the assessing authority and directing him/her to assess the liability of the Petitioner afresh after considering the submissions and merits of the case. e. For reading down section 16(4) of the CGST/BGST Act in a manner which this court deems fit in order to enable the petitioner to claim its rightful imput tax credit given the fact tht the petitioner has filed its GS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the Respondent No.8, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Bhagalpur, the summary of demand dated 26.02.2021 passed in form GST APL-04, in Reference No. ZA1003200159439 and the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 7 namely the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Bhagalpur Division, in Appeal Case No. BH/GST- 34/2020-21, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected merely on the grounds of being barred by limitation. In our considered view, the delay stands sufficiently explained on account of COVID restrictions. Learned counsel for the Revenue, states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded to the Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hagalpur Division, in Appeal Case No. BH/GST-34/2020-21; (b) We accept the statement of the petitioner that ten per cent of the total amount, being condition prerequisite for hearing of the appeal, already stands deposited. If that were so, well and good. However, if the amount is not deposited for whatever reason(s), same shall be done before the next date; (c) Further the petitioner undertakes to additionally deposit ten per cent of the amount of the demand raised before the Assessing Officer. This shall be done within four weeks. (d) This deposit shall be without prejudice to the respective rights and contention of the parties and subject to the order passed by the Assessing Officer. However, if it is ultimately found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
