GST assessment wrongly treated registered taxpayer as "unregistered" u/s 63; appellate order set aside, appeal remitted for rehearing.

Assessment of a registered taxable person was wrongly initiated as one of an "unregistered person" under Section 63 of the GST Act, despite an existing registration effective from 01.07.2017 and the authority's awareness of that status. The HC held that the precondition for invoking Section 63-failure to obtain registration though liable-was absent, amounting to a patent error of jurisdictional fact; further, the assessing authority was not competent to verify or dispute the registration status. Exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, the HC set aside the appellate order and remitted the appeal to the appellate authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and natural justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional error in assessment under Section 63 of the GST Act.
2. Delay in filing the appeal and its condonation.
3. Discriminatory application of the Notification dated 02.11.2023.

Summary:

1. Jurisdictional Error in Assessment under Section 63 of the GST Act:
The petitioner, a registered taxable person under GST since 01.07.2017, was assessed under Section 63 of the GST Act, which applies to unregistered persons. The Court found a glaring jurisdictional error as the Assessing Authority had knowledge of the petitioner's registration. The assessment under Section 63 was thus deemed illegal. The Court cited precedents to emphasize that jurisdictional facts must exist for an authority to assume jurisdiction, and erroneous assumptions cannot confer jurisdiction.

2. Delay in Filing the Appeal and Its Condonation:
The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority due to a delay of 380 days. The Court found that the petitioner had a valid reason for the delay, as the petitioner was unaware of the assessment order until the bank account was attached. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority should have considered the explanation for the delay, especially given the context of the petitioner's registration status and the erroneous assessment under Section 63.

3. Discriminatory Application of the Notification dated 02.11.2023:
The petitioner challenged the discriminatory nature of the Notification dated 02.11.2023, which allowed appeals against orders under Sections 73 and 74 but not under Section 63. The Court did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail as the petitioner did not press for this relief during the hearing. However, the Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that the notification's exclusion of Section 63 assessments was discriminatory.

Conclusion & Decision:
The Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order dated 09.08.2023 and remitted the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Court issued a writ of certiorari, highlighting the jurisdictional error and the need for a pragmatic approach in considering the delay in filing the appeal. The case was disposed of without any order as to costs.

---