2024 (8) TMI 946 - HC - GST

Challenge to orders u/s 62 of TNGST Act - petitioner has failed to furnish the Return for the period from April to July 2023 within the prescribed period - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that this Court, under similar circumstances, has found that the petitioner can be granted one opportunity on payment of 25% of the differential tax, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to deposit 25% of the differential tax between the tax remitted in terms of GSTR 3B and that which is arrived at in terms of the order of assessment within a period of two weeks. If such tax is paid, the assessing Officer shall redo the assessment after hearing the petitioner. The impugned order is set aside and the Assessing Officer/respondent shall consider the impact of the above amendment and thereafter, proceed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders under Section 62 of TNGST Act for failure to furnish returns within prescribed period, service of assessment orders, Best of Judgement Order, remittance of entire tax, unawareness of uploaded orders, request for depositing 25% of disputed tax, extension of return filing time limit, consideration of amendment in assessment orders.

Analysis:
The judgment involves five Writ Petitions challenging impugned orders under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, due to the petitioner's failure to furnish returns within the prescribed period. The impugned orders allowed withdrawal if the returns were filed within 30 days, which the petitioner failed to do. The assessment orders were uploaded on the GST common portal, considered a valid mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the Act. The respondent proceeded with a Best of Judgement Order based on total turnover and GSTR 01 for April 2023, adding 10% for gross profit, as the petitioner did not respond to preceding notices.

The petitioner contended that they had paid the entire tax and had remitted the tax due as per GSTR 3B but were unaware of the uploaded orders, leading to a delay in filing an appeal. Citing a previous court order, the petitioner requested to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and place objections before the Adjudicating Authority. The court, considering similar cases, directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the differential tax within two weeks to redo the assessment.

Regarding a disputed period in one of the Writ Petitions, the petitioner argued that the time limit for filing returns had been extended to 120 days post-amendment, which the Assessing Officer did not consider. The court set aside the impugned order for that period, instructing the Assessing Officer to consider the impact of the amendment before passing fresh orders in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, Writ Petitions challenging impugned orders were disposed of, with one petition allowed for reconsideration due to the amendment in the time limit for filing returns. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed as per the judgment.