GST Assessment Orders Invalidated Due to Procedural Flaws, Petitioner Directed to Deposit 5% of Disputed Tax Demands

HC ruled on GST assessment orders for multiple tax years, finding procedural irregularities in the tax department's approach. The court conditionally set aside the impugned orders, directing the petitioner to remit 5% of disputed tax demands and submit detailed replies within 15 days. The respondent was instructed to provide a fresh opportunity for review within three months, ensuring proper consideration of the petitioner's submissions and computational accuracy.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging assessment orders for multiple years - 2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged assessment orders for various years after responding to queries raised during inspection. The petitioner submitted replies and documents but later received show cause notices leading to the impugned orders. Rectification petitions were filed by the petitioner but were not acted upon, prompting the filing of writ petitions.

2. The petitioner's counsel argued that responses to inspection queries were not considered in the impugned orders. Common issues included discrepancies in GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns, Input Tax Credit disparities, and post-supply discounts. The petitioner explained reasons for e-way bills discrepancies, including transaction value thresholds and transportation distances, which were allegedly disregarded in the orders.

3. The counsel highlighted that tax proposals were confirmed under Section 74 of GST enactments without meeting Section 74 requirements. The counsel emphasized the need for the proper officer to independently assess findings rather than solely relying on the inspection officer's report, citing relevant court judgments and circulars.

4. A computational error in the 2019-20 order was pointed out, imposing a higher liability than warranted. The petitioner agreed to remit 5% of the disputed tax demand for each defect but clarified the amount for one specific defect. The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to upload replies during inspection, leading to the unavailability of responses on the common portal.

5. The impugned orders referenced the inspection report and findings but did not mention the petitioner's responses during inspection. The orders confirmed tax proposals under Section 74. The court set aside the orders conditionally, requiring the petitioner to remit 5% for each demand and submit replies within 15 days. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity for a fresh decision within three months.

6. The writ petitions were disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

---