2020 (3) TMI 132 - HC - GST

Assessment of non-filers of returns - Default in filing of return - non-compliance with the yardsticks prescribed under Sec.62 of GST Act - HELD THAT - The matter in issue raised in these cases is fully covered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent revenue as per the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in 2019 (10) TMI 1181 - KERALA HIGH COURT 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. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment under Sec.62 of the Act
2. Compliance with yardsticks prescribed under Sec.62
3. Regularization of the return for defaulted month
4. Prayers in the filed petitions
5. Judgment based on Division Bench ruling

Analysis:

1. The petitions involved challenges against the assessment orders issued by the 1st respondent under Sec.62 of the Act, fixing tax liability at high amounts due to the petitioner's failure to file returns from November 2018. The petitioners argued that the assessment orders did not comply with the prescribed standards under Sec.62.

2. The petitioners highlighted that they had regularized the return for the defaulted month, indicating an attempt to rectify the non-compliance with filing requirements. This action was evidenced by documents submitted as Ext.P2.

3. The prayers in the filed petitions sought to quash the assessment orders (Ext.P1) issued by the 1st respondent through a writ of certiorari or other appropriate orders, along with requesting incidental reliefs and costs related to the proceedings.

4. The judgment was based on a Division Bench ruling dated 23.10.2019, which set a precedent against the petitioners. The ruling emphasized that continuous defaults in filing returns, responding to notices, and failure to utilize available remedies like subsection (2) of Section 62, weakened the petitioners' challenges against the best judgment assessments. The ruling also highlighted that the petitioners had a statutory appeal remedy against the assessment orders.

5. After considering arguments from both sides, the Court found that the issues raised in the petitions were not in favor of the petitioners but aligned with the respondent revenue. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitions, stating that they lacked merit based on the Division Bench's dictum and the availability of statutory appeal remedies for the petitioners.