2024 (10) TMI 1430 - HC - GST

Challenge to assessment orders - GST liability exemption under Schedule III of applicable GST statutes - HELD THAT - On examining the impugned assessment orders, it is noticeable that the reply submitted by the petitioner on several dates were referred to therein. All the documents submitted by the petitioner, such as purchase documents, Government approvals, copies of sale deeds to customers, documents relating to development fees paid to the Government and the statement relating to purchase of goods were taken into account. Thus, it is evident that the assessing officer engaged with the evidence placed on record by the petitioner and entered findings after appraising such evidence. It cannot be said that a reasonable opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and that the order is a consequence of non application of mind. In these circumstances, no case is made out to warrant interference in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be to carry these assessment orders in appeal before the appellate authority. These writ petitions were filed in January 2024 after orders were issued on the rectification petitions on 05.01.2024. In these circumstances, if appeals are presented by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate authority is directed to consider and dispose of the same on merits without going into the question of limitation.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to assessment orders under specific assessment years regarding GST liability exemption under Schedule III of applicable GST statutes.

Analysis:
In the present case, the petitioner challenged assessment orders related to specific assessment years, claiming exemption from GST under Schedule III of the applicable GST statutes. The petitioner, engaged in the business of purchasing lands, obtaining approvals, and developing/selling plots, surrendered its GST registration based on the exemption. However, show cause notices were issued, alleging lack of project-wise details and concrete evidence regarding the nature of the business. The petitioner contended that all relevant documents, including purchase/sale records, were submitted during the personal hearing and in response to the notices. The assessing officer rejected the submissions primarily due to the alleged absence of project details, which were later provided during the rectification petition hearing. The petitioner sought another opportunity to present these documents to establish the exempted nature of the business.

The Government Advocate for the respondent argued that the assessing officer considered the materials on record and made findings based on the evidence presented. He contended that the assessment orders did not merit interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Upon examination, it was observed that the assessing officer referenced the petitioner's submissions and documents, such as purchase records, approvals, sale deeds, and development fee payments. The officer concluded that the petitioner failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the nature of their business, specifically citing the lack of project details, purchase/sales documentation, and justification for tax proposals based on the Profit and Loss Account. The orders indicated that the petitioner's claims of engaging in plot sales after development were not substantiated with adequate documentation, leading to the denial of the exemption claim.

The court noted that the assessing officer thoroughly reviewed the evidence and made informed decisions based on the documents submitted by the petitioner. It was concluded that the petitioner was provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and the orders were a result of a proper evaluation of the evidence. Therefore, the court found no grounds for interference and advised the petitioner to appeal the assessment orders before the appellate authority. The court directed the appellate authority to consider the appeals without questioning the limitation period if filed within 15 days of receiving a copy of the order. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, with no costs imposed, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.