9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1087 - HC - GSTValidity of assessment order - best judgement assessment - Section 62 of GST for non filing of return - returns were not furnished by him within the said period of 30 days granted by the statue - HELD THAT - The assessments were completed under Section 62 of the GST Act and the assessment orders contained a clear indication therein that if the petitioner filed the returns within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the assessment orders, the orders would be deemed to have been withdrawn and the assessment re-done based on the materials furnished by the petitioner. For reasons best known to the petitioner, the returns were not furnished by him within the said period of 30 days granted by the statue. Under the said circumstances, the confirmation of Ext.P1 series of assessment orders cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. The recovery proceedings are directed for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 series of assessment orders 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.
Issues: Challenge against assessment orders under CGST/KSGST Act, 2017; Validity of assessment orders passed on best judgment basis; Failure to file statutory returns within the specified time period; Availability of alternative remedy through appeal before Appellate Authority.
In the present case, the writ petition challenges Ext.P1 series of assessment orders issued for the period from August 2017 to March 2018 under the CGST/KSGST Act, 2017. The assessment orders were passed on a best judgment basis due to the petitioner's failure to file statutory returns within the stipulated time frame. The court noted that the assessments were conducted under Section 62 of the GST Act, and the orders provided an opportunity for the petitioner to have the assessments re-done by filing the returns within 30 days, which the petitioner failed to do. Consequently, the court found the confirmation of the assessment orders to be legal and justified, given the circumstances. Additionally, the court highlighted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available through an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. Acknowledging the petitioner's need for time to approach the Appellate Authority, the court ordered that recovery proceedings for the confirmed amounts against the petitioner shall be stayed for one month. This stay aims to facilitate the petitioner's appeal process. The court directed the petitioner to submit a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment to the concerned authority for further action. This decision balances the need for compliance with statutory requirements while ensuring the petitioner's right to appeal and seek redress through the prescribed legal channels.
|
