Overlapping tax demands and speculative findings led to remand, with road works and input credit issues sent back for reconsideration.

Assessment based on overlapping tax demands and incomplete consideration of the record was treated as legally vulnerable. The court noted prima facie overlap between the GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch proposal for July 2017 and the wider assessment for 2018-19, and found the order had not properly dealt with the material placed before it. On road works, trade payables, and excess input tax credit, the matter required reconsideration because the road works notifications suggested a 12% rate, the trade payables finding rested on speculation, and the excess input tax credit issue depended on supplier certificates not shown to be on record. The assessment was set aside and remanded with a hearing opportunity and partial deposit protection.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessment order suffered from non-application of mind and overlapping tax demands requiring interference; (ii) whether the tax proposal on road works, trade payables, and excess input tax credit warranted remand for reconsideration.

Issue (i): whether the assessment order suffered from non-application of mind and overlapping tax demands requiring interference.

Analysis: The order did not show that the proposal relating to the mismatch between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B for July 2017 was excluded from the broader proposal covering the assessment period 2018-19. The demand was therefore found to overlap prima facie. The reasoning also indicated that the impugned order proceeded without properly dealing with the material placed on record.

Conclusion: This issue was answered in favour of the assessee, and the order was found liable to interference.

Issue (ii): whether the tax proposal on road works, trade payables, and excess input tax credit warranted remand for reconsideration.

Analysis: The notifications produced in relation to road works prima facie indicated a 12% tax rate even where the service was not rendered directly to the Government, so that aspect required reconsideration. The finding on trade payables was treated as speculative because it assumed non-payment of a percentage of liabilities within 180 days without adequate basis. As regards excess input tax credit, the record did not show production of the required certificates from the suppliers' chartered accountants where the discrepancy exceeded the stated threshold.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with limited protection of revenue by way of a pre-deposit condition.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was set aside and the matter sent back for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing, while preserving the revenue interest through partial deposit and restoring the bank attachment on setting aside of the assessment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax assessment is based on overlapping demands or speculative assumptions and does not duly consider the material placed on record, the proper course is to set it aside and remand the matter for reconsideration after affording a fair hearing.

---