2024 (7) TMI 1100 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment order - petitioner has not replied to any of the notices that were issued to the petitioner that preceded the impugned orders - HELD THAT - Although the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submits that these writ petitions are without merits, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT and the appellate remedy as far as the assessment orders for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20 are concerned, is time barred, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT , to balance the interest of the parties, the impugned orders can be set aside subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for the respective assessment years. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. It is expected that the respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 2 months thereafter - the petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20, lack of response to notices, treatment of transactions, entitlement to input tax credit, time-barred appellate remedy.

Analysis:
The writ petitions in question challenge the assessment orders issued for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20. The petitioner failed to respond to the notices preceding these orders, claiming ignorance as the notices were uploaded on the GST common portal. The main contention revolves around the classification of the petitioner's supplies as Business to Consumer instead of Business to Business. The petitioner, being a dealer, asserts entitlement to input tax credit supported by a certificate from a Chartered Accountant.

The Additional Government Pleader argues that the writ petitions lack merit. However, considering relevant legal precedents, the Court decides to set aside the impugned orders, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The petitioner is directed to submit a consolidated reply within the specified period, and the quashed order is to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices. The respondent is expected to issue a fresh order within two months, ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard before final decisions are made.

Ultimately, the Court allows the Writ Petitions, with no costs imposed, and closes the connected Miscellaneous Petitions. The judgment balances the interests of both parties while addressing the issues raised in the assessment orders for the specified assessment years.