GST Assessment Orders Invalidated: Procedural Flaws Expose Critical Document Access Challenges for Taxpayer

HC quashed GST assessment orders for financial years 2019-22 due to petitioner's inability to access critical documents. The court found procedural irregularities in the assessment process and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing petitioner to submit relevant documents within three weeks and mandating a fresh assessment within four months.

---

---

Issues Involved: Assessment order for financial years 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 under GST laws challenged.

Summary:

Issue 1: Responding to Defects in Assessment Order
The petitioner challenged the assessment order citing non-availability of relevant documents for defects related to outward taxable turnover, circular trading, and cancellation of e-way bills. The petitioner informed the respondent about the lack of documents in replies dated 07.01.2023 and 03.07.2023. The respondent, in a reasoned order, considered the petitioner's submissions but issued a composite assessment order with four defects, impacting the petitioner's ability to respond to two defects due to the unavailability of records held by Central GST authorities.

Issue 2: Legal Arguments
The petitioner's counsel argued that the claim regarding circular trading could not be addressed without relevant documents, and requested an opportunity to establish the genuineness of purchases after receiving the necessary documents. The Additional Government Pleader contended that the impugned order was reasoned and dropped certain claims after considering the petitioner's replies and submissions during the hearing. He suggested that any infirmity in the order could be addressed through a statutory appeal.

Issue 3: Court Decision
Considering the cumulative replies of the petitioner indicating the non-availability of documents for specific defects, the court found that the lack of records impacted the petitioner's ability to respond to two out of three defects in the assessment order. In exercising discretionary jurisdiction, the court concluded that interference was warranted to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to address these defects. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter for re-consideration, directing the petitioner to submit all relevant documents within three weeks for a fresh assessment within four months thereafter.

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petitions on the mentioned terms without costs, closing the related miscellaneous petitions.

---