Best judgment GST assessment fails without effective hearing, leading to remand for fresh adjudication and revenue protection conditions.

Best judgment assessments under Section 63 of the CGST Act were found unsustainable because the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to contest the proposal, and notice upload on a temporary ID did not cure the absence of a fair hearing. The assessments were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication after receipt of a reply and grant of personal hearing. To protect revenue, the assessee was directed to remit 10% of the disputed demand, and was permitted to seek refund of amounts already paid under the earlier registration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the best judgment assessment orders passed under Section 63 of the CGST Act could stand when the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to contest the proposal and when the notices were stated to have been uploaded only on a temporary ID; (ii) Whether the assessment orders required to be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity of reply and personal hearing.

Issue (i): Whether the best judgment assessment orders passed under Section 63 of the CGST Act could stand when the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to contest the proposal and when the notices were stated to have been uploaded only on a temporary ID.

Analysis: The orders were based on best judgment assessment with reference to auto-populated returns and purchase particulars, but the assessee was not heard in person and its objections were not considered. In such circumstances, the availability or otherwise of access to the temporary ID did not cure the absence of an effective opportunity before finalisation of the tax liability. The assessment process therefore suffered from want of a fair hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned assessments could not be sustained on the existing record and the assessee's challenge succeeded on this aspect.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment orders required to be set aside and the matters remanded for fresh consideration with opportunity of reply and personal hearing.

Analysis: Since the assessee had been kept out of the adjudicatory process, fairness required that the tax proposal be reconsidered on merits after receipt of a reply. The Court also directed protection of revenue by requiring remittance of 10% of the disputed tax demand and permitted the assessee to seek refund of the amount already paid under the earlier registration. Fresh orders were directed to be passed after granting reasonable opportunity, including personal hearing, within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for reconsideration subject to compliance with the directed conditions.

Final Conclusion: The assessee obtained partial relief, as the ex parte assessments were annulled and the disputes were sent back for fresh adjudication with procedural safeguards and interim revenue protection.

Ratio Decidendi: A best judgment assessment under GST cannot be sustained where the assessee is denied an effective opportunity to contest the proposal, and the matter must be remanded for fresh consideration after notice, reply, and personal hearing.

---