9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 195 - HC - GSTUploading of an order of assessment under Section 62(1) as well as the summary thereof - HELD THAT - The instant summary order dated 14.03.2020 must statutorily have been accompanied by a speaking order and it is only such speaking order that would be liable to be challenged, as there would be no reasoning on the basis of which the summary of order would be amenable to challenge. The counter at paragraph 13 states that the prayer for refund sought by the petitioner, for excess payment of ₹ 5,46,641/- and 1,35,584/- are found to be correct and orders had been passed by the State Tax Officer, Thiruvallur Assessment Circle on 12.02.2021, as the assessee is assessed in that circle. The aforesaid Assessing Officer has not been arrayed as a respondent and it is only the Deputy State Tax Officer, Sriperumbudur Circle, who has been arrayed as a respondent. Petition closed.
Issues:
Challenge to summary order dated 14.03.2020 under Rule 100 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Prayer for refund of excess payment. Assessment by State Tax Officer in Thiruvallur Assessment Circle. Respondents named in the petition. Analysis: The matter before the court involved a challenge to a summary order dated 14.03.2020 under Rule 100 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The court noted that Rule 100 mandates the uploading of an order of assessment under Section 62(1) along with its summary. It was highlighted that a speaking order must accompany such a summary order to provide the necessary reasoning for any challenge. In this case, the court emphasized that only a speaking order could be subject to challenge, as the summary order lacked the requisite reasoning for challenge. The court considered the prayer for refund made by the petitioner, amounting to ?5,46,641/- and ?1,35,584/- for excess payment. It was mentioned that the State Tax Officer in the Thiruvallur Assessment Circle had passed orders on 12.02.2021 regarding the refund sought by the petitioner. Notably, the Assessing Officer from the Thiruvallur Assessment Circle was responsible for the assessment, yet only the Deputy State Tax Officer from the Sriperumbudur Circle was named as a respondent in the petition. The court acknowledged the concession made by the revenue in the counter regarding the refund sought by the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pursue the matter based on this concession. Ultimately, the court decided to close the Writ Petition without imposing any costs. Additionally, all connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also closed as a result of this judgment. The judgment provided clarity on the necessity of a speaking order for challenging assessment orders and highlighted the importance of proper identification of respondents in legal proceedings.
|
