2022 (12) TMI 815 - HC - GST

Ex-parte assessment order - service of notice - it is alleged that the orders have been issued in complete violation to section 73 (8) of the GST Act which prescribes minimum 30 days notice time - time limitation - opportunity not provided for making payment - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, minimum statutory period of 30 days mandated under the provisions of Section 74(A) of CGST/BGST Act, 2017 was not afforded to the petitioner for making payment due and prior to the expiry of 30 days, the assessing officer proceeded to pass the order, ex parte in nature. The notice dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure-P/4 series) directed the petitioner to file reply on 21st of February, 2021 which was within the period of 30 days. It is the mandate of law that 30 days period has to be afforded to the parties, which was not done in the instant case. The notice dated 15.02.2021 (Annexure-P/4 series) as also the order of assessment dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure-P/1 ) are quashed, with the direction to the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in the light of the statutory provisions and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. All proceedings be positively complied with in these matters - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of assessment order for FY 2020-21
2. Compliance with statutory notice period under Section 73(8) of GST Act
3. Legality of appellate order based on delay/limitation
4. Coercive actions by Respondents
5. Refund of disputed tax amount
6. Fresh assessment order for FY 2020-21
7. Allegations of illegal issuance of assessment and appellate orders
8. Enhanced tax liability without proper verification
9. Rejection of Input claim and imposition of interest
10. Justification for differences in tax amounts between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought relief by challenging the assessment order for FY 2020-21, highlighting an ex-parte assessment imposing a total liability of Rs. 9,85,119. The court was requested to quash this order and set aside the demand issued by Respondent No. 7 before the statutory notice period of 30 days, as required by Section 73(8) of the GST Act.

2. The court acknowledged that the statutory 30-day notice period was not provided to the petitioner before passing the ex-parte assessment order. Consequently, the court quashed the notice dated 15.02.2021 and the assessment order dated 24.02.2021, directing the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice and pass an appropriate order in compliance with the law.

3. The petitioner also contested the appellate order dated 28.09.2022, which rejected the appeal based on a delay/limitation of 17 days. The court did not delve into the specifics of this issue in the judgment.

4. Regarding coercive actions, the petitioner requested a writ to prevent the Respondents from taking any coercive action, including recovery from bank accounts, until the present writ application's pendency. The court did not provide detailed analysis on this issue in the judgment.

5. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 93,365 deposited as ten percent of the disputed tax amount for FY 2020-21. This amount was required as a pre-deposit before filing an appeal under the CGST/SGST for that period.

6. Additionally, the petitioner requested a mandamus to direct the Respondents to pass a fresh assessment order for FY 2020-21, considering available invoices, GSTR-3B, GSTR-2A, and GSTR-9 to determine the actual tax liability.

7. Allegations were made against Respondent No. 7 and 5 for issuing assessment and appellate orders illegally without examining records or appreciating supporting materials uploaded by the petitioner on the GST web portal.

8. The petitioner accused Respondent No. 7 of enhancing tax liability without proper verification, specifically mentioning an increase up to 6 times based on TDS certificates issued by the customer.

9. Respondent No. 7's rejection of Input claims and imposition of interest were challenged by the petitioner, highlighting discrepancies in IGST between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, as well as differences in taxes imposed on GSTR-7.

10. The petitioner argued that the differences in tax amounts between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A could have been justified if given an opportunity of hearing by the assessing officer, emphasizing the importance of due process in tax assessments.

The judgment primarily focused on the lack of compliance with the statutory notice period, leading to the quashing of the assessment order and the directive for a fresh assessment following proper procedures. The court did not extensively address all issues raised by the petitioner, focusing mainly on the procedural irregularities in the assessment process.

← Previous Next →