9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1187 - HC - GSTRevision of monthly returns - Initially, on 25. 10. 2016, the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) allowed the petitioner to revise the monthly returns from November 2015 to March 2016. But the request concerned the months from April 2015 to March 2016 - revision of return was rejected from the Office of the Commissioner, State Goods & Services Tax Department, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. Held that - The Assistant Commissioner discharges the functions of a quasi judicial authority. And the reasoning is the heart of the adjudication. Here, the Ext. P4 reads more like a fiat. It contains no reasons for rejection - the Ext. P4 is set aside and matter remanded for fresh adjudication.
Issues:
Petitioner's request to revise monthly returns for assessment years 2015-2016 from April 2015 to March 2016. Ext. P4 order rejecting the request without providing reasons. Analysis: The petitioner, an assessee, sought to revise its monthly returns for the assessment years 2015-2016 from April 2015 to March 2016, but the Assistant Commissioner initially allowed revisions only from November 2015 to March 2016. Subsequently, the second respondent issued the Ext. P4 order rejecting the request without providing any reasons for the rejection. The Ext. P4 order was deemed deficient as it lacked the necessary reasoning expected from a quasi-judicial authority. The absence of reasons in the order was highlighted, indicating a lack of proper adjudication. The judgment emphasized the importance of reasoning in adjudicatory processes and noted that the Ext. P4 order appeared more like a directive rather than a reasoned decision. Consequently, the court set aside the Ext. P4 order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It was directed that coercive actions by the department be deferred until the second respondent issues a fresh decision on the petitioner's request. The ruling underscored the fundamental principle that quasi-judicial authorities must provide clear and justifiable reasons for their decisions to ensure a fair and transparent decision-making process.
|
