GST procedural circulars upheld while ex parte assessment orders were quashed and remitted for fresh reply opportunities.

Challenge to GST circulars failed because departmental officers were not barred from inspecting business premises or recording statements, and the circulars were treated as consistent with the GST procedural framework. The Court also held that, since the taxpayer had not replied to the notices, one further opportunity could be given in the interests of justice. The assessment orders were quashed, the matter was restored to the notice stage, and the taxpayer was required to file separate replies for each assessment year and deposit 10% of the disputed tax within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to the impugned circulars under the GST regime was sustainable; (ii) Whether the impugned assessment orders should be interfered with and the petitioner granted an opportunity to reply subject to conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to the impugned circulars under the GST regime was sustainable.

Analysis: The challenge failed because the departmental officers were not barred from inspecting the business premises and recording statements. The circulars were treated as addressing the procedure followed in the investigation and were found to be consistent with the GST framework as understood in the earlier connected decision relied on by the respondents.

Conclusion: The challenge to the circulars was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned assessment orders should be interfered with and the petitioner granted an opportunity to reply subject to conditions.

Analysis: Since the petitioner had not responded to the notices, the Court found that one further opportunity could be granted in the interests of justice. The assessment orders were quashed for the concerned assessment years and the matter was directed to proceed from the notice stage, with the petitioner required to deposit 10% of the disputed tax and file separate replies for each year within the stipulated time.

Conclusion: The assessment orders were interfered with, and the petitioner was granted a conditional opportunity to contest the demands afresh.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by sustaining the circulars, quashing the assessment orders, and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication after compliance with the stipulated conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A conditional opportunity to participate in the adjudication process may be granted even after ex parte assessment, while a challenge to procedural circulars will fail where inspection and recording of statements are within the departmental scheme.

---