2019 (10) TMI 1181 - HC - GST

Assessment Order - Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 - contention is that, the impugned orders were passed in a quite mechanical manner, without proper application of mind - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The assesses herein had committed default continuously in filing the returns, in responding to the notices requiring them to file the returns, in responding to the notice proposing best judgment assessments etc. Even after receipt of the impugned orders of assessment, they failed to avail the remedy provided under subsection (2) of Section 62. Under such circumstances we cannot entertain the challenges raised against the best judgment assessments finalized. Against the impugned orders the appellants have got an effective remedy by way of statutory appeal. There exists no circumstances to quash the impugned orders in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by permitting the appellants to bypass such effective remedy available - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Failure to furnish valid returns within the stipulated time period; Applicability of Article 226 jurisdiction for extending time limit; Reliance on previous period returns in assessment; Availability of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act; Special circumstances for interference by the court; Legality of best judgment assessments; Bypassing effective statutory remedy through Article 226 jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The judgment involved challenges to assessment orders under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for different assessees during 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 financial years. The appellants sought to quash the orders, arguing that the Assessing Officer did not provide details of materials relied upon for best judgment assessment as required by Section 62(1) of the Act. The Single Judge noted the failure of appellants to utilize the opportunity under Section 62(2) by submitting valid returns within 30 days of receiving the assessment orders, which could have mitigated their liability. The court emphasized the strict interpretation of the 30-day time limit under Section 62(2) for filing returns to challenge best judgment assessments.

The writ appeals raised concerns regarding the Assessing Officer's reliance on previous period returns and the alleged failure to consider available details while passing the assessment orders. The Government Pleader highlighted the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act against the impugned orders. The court was not convinced of any special circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 to declare the assessments illegal. It noted the continuous defaults by the assesses in filing returns and responding to assessment notices, reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory procedures.

The judgment emphasized that despite the lack of detailed explanation in the assessment orders, it was presumed that best judgment assessments were based on available materials. The court underscored the availability of an effective statutory appeal as the proper remedy for challenging the assessments. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ appeals, stating that there was no justification to bypass the statutory appeal process through Article 226 jurisdiction. The appellants were encouraged to pursue the alternative remedy provided under the law, ensuring that the appellate authority would independently address the appeals without being influenced by the previous judgments.

In conclusion, the judgment reaffirmed the importance of following statutory procedures and utilizing available remedies within the framework of tax laws. It highlighted the significance of statutory appeals as the appropriate avenue for challenging assessment orders, emphasizing the limitations of Article 226 jurisdiction in bypassing established legal remedies.