GST assessment jurisdiction upheld where compounding was not actually opted for and regular returns were filed.

An assessment under the U.P. GST Act was not without jurisdiction where the assessee had not actually opted for compounding and had filed returns for regular assessment. The writ challenge relied on a claimed choice of the compounding method, but the record showed regular-return filing during the relevant period. On that factual basis, the objection that the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction failed, and the assessment under Section 64 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment under Section 64 of the U.P. GST Act, 2018 was without jurisdiction on the ground that the assessee had opted for compounding and paid tax under the compounding method.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the assessment order on the premise that no regular assessment could be made once the assessee had allegedly applied for compounding. The record, however, showed that the assessee had filed its return for regular assessment and had not opted for compounding during the relevant period. On that factual basis, the objection that the assessing authority lacked jurisdiction did not survive.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and the assessment under Section 64 was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee has not opted for compounding and has filed returns for regular assessment, an assessment under the GST law is not without jurisdiction merely because compounding is later claimed.

---