Order Challenged Before Court Can't Be Justified By Producing Extra Material That Was Not Placed Before Adjudicating Authority: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has held that when an order passed by the adjudicating authority is challenged before the Court, the same cannot be defended by the Govt counsel by relying on such material that was never placed before the authority, despite it being in existence at the time of adjudication.

Thus, quashing an order by the Assistant Commissioner, Commerical Tax, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar noted,

"Shri Vikash Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No. 11 has tried to justify the order on the basis of the material, not placed before the authority but before this Court and that too preceding to the events leading to passing of the impugned order. Well, this is unacceptable in law for the authority has to consider the material placed before itself and the order cannot be justified on any other material."

The petition was filed for quashing the demand notice passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax under Section 8 of the Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1993 read with Section 33 of the Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court noted that the order reveals no authority based on which the Commissioner has found the petitioner liable to pay interest.

It remarked that the impugned order is absolutely cryptic, unreasoned and not dealing with any one of the issues raised by the petitioner.

"The mind of the authority has to be reflected from the reasoning furnished, which we find in the instant case to be absolutely nonexistent. A sum of 28,95,728/- stands levied ₹ as interest upon the petitioner in terms of the impugned order."

Case Title: United Breweries Ltd v. The State of Bihar

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Pat) 1

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order