GST Assessment Order Upheld as Petitioner Failed to Respond to Notices and Skipped Statutory Appeal Remedy

The HC disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order for 2017-18. The petitioner claimed procedural violation as the show cause notice wasn't issued electronically per CGST Rules. The court noted the petitioner had defaulted on GSTR-3 returns and failed to respond to notices or attend hearings. Instead of pursuing the statutory appeal remedy, the petitioner filed this writ petition to avoid limitation period and pre-deposit requirements. The HC granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days, subject to mandatory pre-deposit, directing the Commissioner to consider the appeal on merits without limitation constraints.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to impugned order dated 19.02.2021 for assessment year 2017-18, failure to issue show cause notice electronically as per CGST Rules, petitioner's default in filing GSTR-3 return, squandering of alternative appellate remedy, disposal of Writ Petition with liberty to file statutory appeal.

In this case, the petitioner challenged an order dated 19.02.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18, related to a Timber business inspection by the Enforcement Department on 10.09.2020 and 11.09.2020. The petitioner failed to appear for a personal hearing, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the order was contrary to rules as the show cause notice should have been issued electronically as per CGST Rules. The respondent argued that despite opportunities, the petitioner did not avail the personal hearing, leading to dismissal on the ground of latches due to the order date. The court considered both sides' arguments.

The court noted the petitioner's default in filing GSTR-3 return for February and March 2018, despite filing GSTR-1&2 for the same period, indicating outward supply and purchases. A notice was issued, but the petitioner did not respond, resulting in the impugned order. The petitioner missed the alternative appellate remedy deadline, prompting the filing of a Writ Petition to overcome the limitation and pre-deposit requirement.

As the petitioner was considered an aggrieved party, the court disposed of the Writ Petition with liberty for the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within thirty days from receiving the order copy, subject to making a mandatory pre-deposit. The Appellate Commissioner was directed to entertain the appeal on merits without limitation constraints and dispose of it in accordance with the law. The Writ Petition was thus concluded with the specified terms, no costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

---