2020 (10) TMI 108 - HC - GST

Best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the CGST Act - contention of petitioner is that in view of the returns subsequently filed within the period permitted under Section 62, Ext.P1 series of assessment orders had to be withdrawn as contemplated under the said Section - HELD THAT - There are force in the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the respondents that the returns in respect of the period aforementioned were filed beyond the period of one month stipulated under Section 62 of the Act. It would follow, therefore, the petitioner cannot aspire for the benefit of getting the assessment orders passed on best judgment basis set aside, as contemplated under Section 62 of the Act. The remedy of the petitioner against the said assessment orders lies in approaching the statutory appellate authority against the said orders - The writ petition is dismissed in its challenge against the assessment orders without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the first appellate authority in its challenge against the said assessment orders. The recovery steps pursuant to the assessment orders impugned in this writ petition shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority, in the meanwhile. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against assessment orders passed on best judgment basis under Section 62 of the CGST Act.
2. Filing of returns by the petitioner within the statutorily permitted period.
3. Validity of assessment orders and the mode of communication under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
4. Petitioner's right to set aside assessment orders and approach the appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a private limited company providing ayurvedic and spa services, challenged assessment orders passed under Section 62 of the CGST Act for the period from April 2018 to October 2019. The petitioner contended that returns were filed within the permitted 30-day period and applications for rectification of errors were submitted. The petitioner argued that the subsequent filing of returns should lead to the withdrawal of the assessment orders.

2. A comparative chart revealed that returns for various months were filed after the issuance of assessment orders. The Government Pleader cited Section 169 of the CGST Act, stating that communication through the common portal is a recognized method. As the returns were filed more than 30 days after the orders were published on the portal, the petitioner was deemed ineligible to have the assessment orders set aside under Section 62.

3. The Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, agreed with the Government Pleader that the returns were filed beyond the stipulated one-month period under Section 62. Consequently, the petitioner was advised to seek remedy through the statutory appellate authority against the assessment orders. The writ petition challenging the assessment orders was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority while keeping recovery steps on hold for a month.

4. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner's recourse against the assessment orders lay in appealing to the statutory authority. The Court dismissed the petition without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the orders through the appellate process. The petitioner was granted time to approach the appellate authority, and recovery actions related to the assessment orders were stayed for a month to facilitate the appeal process.