2021 (2) TMI 750 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - validity of attachment order - case of petitioner is that no amount is due and payable and the order of attachment dated 4th of March, 2020 stands issued without application of mind - applicability of the provisions of Sections 16, 37, 39, 44 and 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In the attending facts and circumstances, it would be only more appropriate, as is also so submitted by Shri Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner approaches the appellate authority highlighting the issues raised before this Court, as also pointing out the errors apparent on the face of record, if any, enabling the authority to reconsider the petitioner s case based on the material so placed. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to summary best-judgment assessment orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 for July and August 2019.
2. Request for refund of amounts paid under protest for bank account functionality.
3. Adjustment and reassessment of excess amounts deposited against tax liabilities for July and August 2019.
4. Fresh assessment order for the period until February 2020.
5. Prevention of coercive steps by the respondents during the pendency of the writ application.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief by challenging the summary best-judgment assessment orders dated 14.09.2019 and 12.10.2019 under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the months of July 2019 and August 2019. The petitioner also requested the quashing of recovery notices issued under Section 79 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that no amount was due and payable, and the attachment order issued on 04.03.2020 lacked proper application of mind. The State was informed of a similar withdrawal of an impugned order under comparable circumstances. The petitioner's arguments were based on the absence of consideration of relevant provisions of the Act.

2. Additionally, the petitioner sought refunds of amounts paid under protest to restore functionality to their bank account. These payments were made on 20.03.2020 following instructions from the respondents. The petitioner emphasized that no outstanding liabilities existed until February 2020 and requested a fresh assessment order for the same period. The petitioner also sought to prevent coercive actions by the respondents during the pendency of the writ application.

3. The petitioner highlighted the discrepancy in the amounts deposited against monthly tax liabilities for July and August 2019. Excess amounts were paid, and the petitioner requested adjustments and reassessments considering the actual liabilities. The petitioner provided detailed breakdowns of payments made and late fines incurred due to delayed filing of returns. The petitioner argued that the assessment orders were based on presumptions rather than actual figures, impacting the tax and interest liabilities.

4. The judgment emphasized the need for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority to address the raised issues and reconsider the case based on presented material. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits but advised the petitioner to engage with the appellate authority to resolve the matter effectively. The appellate authority was directed to consider all aspects and make a decision within a specified timeframe, leaving all issues open for further review if necessary.

5. The Court disposed of the petition by setting aside the attachment order dated 4th March 2020 and directed the petitioner to appear before the assessing officer on a specified date. Coercive actions for recovery were prohibited until a decision was made by the authority. The judgment aimed to ensure a fair and thorough consideration of the petitioner's case by the appellate authority, maintaining a balanced approach to address the issues raised effectively.