2024 (3) TMI 961 - HC - GST

Tax Authorities Barred from Reopening Closed GST Assessment Due to Procedural Flaws and Prior Termination Order

Radiant Cash Management Services Ltd., Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Chennai

HC quashed GST assessment order for cash logistics business after finding procedural irregularities. Despite initial notice and subsequent order dropping ... Validity of assessment order - alleged discrepancies in returns filed by the petitioner - difference between the amounts indicated in the notice in Form ASMT-10 and the amounts specified in the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- On examining the notice in Form ASMT-10, the said notice pertains to financial year 2017-2018. The abstract of demand proposed therein is for an aggregate sum of Rs. 1,37,33,386.62 comprising a demand of Rs. 71,59,663.28 towards IGST, a sum of Rs. 32,86,861.67 towards SGST and a sum of Rs. 32,86,861.67 towards CGST. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply dated 22.09.2023, by order in Form ASMT-12 dated 27.09.2023, the respondents concluded that the reply was satisfactory and no further action is required. In these circumstances, it is necessary to examine the impugned assessment order to verify whether the same demand was resurrected. On examining the impugned assessment order, it is found that the confirmation of demand relates to the same assessment period and the same amounts towards SGST, CGST and IGST. The only difference is that interest and penalty has been imposed thereon to arrive at the aggregate sum indicated therein. Upon issuance of an order in Form ASMT-12 recording that no further action is required, the continuation of proceedings culminating in the impugned assessment order is undoubtedly unsustainable. The impugned assessment order is quashed - Petition closed. Issues: Challenge to assessment order dated 29.12.2023 under applicable GST enactments for assessment year 2017-2018.Summary:Issue 1: Alleged discrepancies in returns and subsequent proceedingsThe petitioner, engaged in cash logistics business, received a notice in Form ASMT-10 for alleged discrepancies in returns. The petitioner replied to the notice on 22.09.2023, and an order in Form ASMT-12 was issued on 27.09.2023 dropping the proceedings. However, the impugned assessment order was issued on 29.12.2023, leading to the challenge.Issue 2: Petitioner's contentionsThe petitioner's counsel pointed out that the amounts demanded in the notice in Form ASMT-10 matched those in the impugned order. Referring to the order in Form ASMT-12, it was highlighted that no further action was required as per the GST authorities, making the assessment order unsustainable.Issue 3: Respondent's argumentThe Government Advocate for the respondent stated a difference in amounts between the notice in Form ASMT-10 and the impugned assessment order, contradicting the petitioner's position.Issue 4: Examination of assessment orderUpon examination, it was found that the impugned assessment order confirmed the same demand amounts for SGST, CGST, and IGST as in the notice in Form ASMT-10. The only addition was the imposition of interest and penalty, making the continuation of proceedings post the order in Form ASMT-12 unsustainable.ConclusionThe High Court quashed the impugned assessment order, allowing the writ petition and closing connected miscellaneous petitions without costs.