Court rejects challenge to GST demand notices, allows appeal against assessment orders; rectifies error in review petition

The court rejected the petitioner's challenge to demand-cum-recovery notices under the GST Act, dismissing the writ petition but allowing appellate remedies against assessment orders. A subsequent review petition was initially dismissed but later allowed upon discovering errors in the communication of assessment orders. The court acknowledged and rectified its mistake, emphasizing the importance of ensuring litigants do not suffer due to court errors.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to demand-cum-recovery notices under GST Act based on best judgment assessment.
2. Dismissal of writ petition and subsequent review petition.
3. Allegation of incorrect communication of assessment orders.
4. Error in factual basis leading to dismissal of earlier petition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging demand-cum-recovery notices issued under the GST Act following a best judgment assessment. The petitioner argued that as he was not served with assessment orders immediately, the returns filed within 30 days of receiving demand notices should be considered timely filed under Section 62 of the GST Act. However, the court rejected this argument based on the respondent's submission that assessment orders were communicated through uploading on the common web portal as permitted by law. The court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies against the assessment orders.

2. A review petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed for lacking merit. However, during the hearing of another writ petition involving a similar issue, it was revealed that assessment orders were not being simultaneously uploaded on the common web portal as previously claimed. The court interacted with GST department officers who clarified that the orders were uploaded on the back-end web portal maintained by the State Government, not the common web portal maintained by the GST Network.

3. The court acknowledged the erroneous factual basis that led to the dismissal of the earlier petition and recognized the need to correct the mistake in the interest of justice for the petitioner. The court, therefore, decided to recall its earlier order and allowed the review petition in light of the new information. It emphasized that a litigant should not suffer due to a mistake made by the court, especially when the court acknowledges the error.

This detailed analysis highlights the sequence of events, legal arguments presented, court decisions, and the subsequent correction made by the court to rectify the earlier dismissal of the petitioner's claims.

---