9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 491 - HC - GSTLegality and validity of the best judgment assessment orders - Cancellation of registration of petitioner - Cancellation of registration has been challenged on the ground that it does not indicate or acknowledge payment of GST to the tune of ₹ 10,25,800.00 by the petitioner - section 62(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 covering the period from March, 2020 upto October, 2020 - HELD THAT - Impugned cancellation of registration dated 24.12.2020 is hereby stayed. Further, no coercive steps further to the best judgment assessments shall be taken against the petitioner in the meanwhile. Stand over to 16.03.2021.
Issues:
Challenge to best judgment assessment orders under the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of best judgment assessment orders dated 25.11.2020 and 11.12.2020, passed under section 62(1) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, covering the period from March, 2020, up to October, 2020. The petitioner also contested the cancellation of its GST registration dated 24.12.2020. The petitioner's counsel argued that the assessments were made during a period of lockdown when business activity was minimal, despite the petitioner having paid ?10,25,800.00 on 14.12.2020, which was allegedly not considered by the respondents. The cancellation of registration was challenged on the basis that it failed to acknowledge the payment made by the petitioner, and the order lacked a rational basis for such a drastic action. The court issued notice on the matter, and the respondents were given an opportunity to file a reply affidavit before the returnable date. After hearing both parties, the court stayed the impugned cancellation of registration dated 24.12.2020. Additionally, the court directed that no coercive steps following the best judgment assessments should be taken against the petitioner in the interim. The case was adjourned to 16.03.2021 for further proceedings. The order was to be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of the Court, with instructions for all concerned parties to act upon the production of a digitally signed copy via fax or email.
|
