Mandatory pre-assessment notice under GST law is a substantive safeguard; absence of service vitiates best judgment assessment and related credit action.

A best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the Jharkhand GST Act is invalid unless it is preceded by the mandatory notice under Section 46 to the return defaulter. The statutory scheme makes prior notice a substantive safeguard, and Section 62(2) provides a further opportunity to file a valid return within thirty days of service of the assessment order, after which the assessment is deemed withdrawn. Where the record does not establish service of the Section 46 notice before the assessment order, the assessment is vitiated and consequential appellate action cannot stand. On that basis, the blocking and adjustment of input tax credit was also set aside and the credit directed to be unblocked.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment under Section 62 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be sustained when no notice under Section 46 had been served before the assessment order, and whether the consequential appellate order and blocking of input tax credit could stand.

Analysis: Section 46 requires a notice to a return defaulter before the proper officer may proceed further. Section 62 permits best judgment assessment only after service of such notice, and sub-section (2) gives the registered person a further opportunity to file a valid return within thirty days of service of the assessment order, in which event the assessment is deemed withdrawn. The statutory scheme, reinforced by the prescribed notice procedure and the CBIC circular relied upon in the judgment, shows that prior notice is a mandatory safeguard and not a mere formality. The record did not establish service of notice under Section 46 before the assessment order was passed. The appellate authority also proceeded on the mistaken footing that failure to file a return within thirty days of the assessment order was by itself sufficient, without addressing the foundational defect in the assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable for non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement, and the appellate order also could not be sustained. The consequential blocking and adjustment of input tax credit was set aside, and the blocked credit was directed to be unblocked.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the assessment and appellate orders were annulled, and the assessee was restored to the position of being able to use its input tax credit in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is invalid unless preceded by the mandatory notice under Section 46, and failure to follow that statutory precondition vitiates the assessment and its consequential measures.

---