2024 (9) TMI 597 - HC - GST

GST Assessment Orders Quashed: Petitioners Win Right to Fresh Review with Consolidated Reply and Timely Reconsideration

Tvl. M. Muthupandi Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 Madurai

HC allowed Writ Petitions challenging GST assessment orders for two assessment years. Despite time bar arguments, court quashed impugned orders and ... Challenge to assessment orders - impugned orders have preceded SCN u/s 74 of the respective GST enactment dated 02.01.2023 and 30.12.2022 respectively - HELD THAT:- Having considered the fact that the petitioner has not replied to the respective Show Cause Notices issued under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, considering the predicament of the petitioner that the petitioner was ailing from Kidney problem and considering the fact that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.5,76,810/-, the Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner by quashing the impugned orders and remitting the cases back to the respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. The impugned orders, which stand quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the respective show cause notices that preceded the respective impugned orders. The petitioner is directed to file consolidated reply within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenging assessment orders for two different assessment years under GST enactment. Time bar for filing Writ Petitions and appellate remedy under GST enactments.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the assessment orders for two different assessment years, 2018-19 and 2019-20, under the GST enactment. The impugned orders were based on discrepancies in the Auto Populated Input Tax, returns filed by the petitioner, and information in various GST forms. The petitioner, a Government Contractor, contended that a proper reconciliation could be made based on a certificate from the Government Department, reducing the tax liability significantly. The petitioner had paid a portion of the demanded amounts after the issuance of the impugned orders.The respondent argued that the Writ Petitions were time-barred and should be dismissed due to delays, citing a Supreme Court decision. Additionally, the respondent claimed that the appellate remedy was also time-barred under Section 107 of the GST enactments, referencing another Supreme Court ruling. The respondent opposed the petitioner's request for remitting the cases back for a proper explanation.After hearing both parties, the Court considered the petitioner's health issues and the partial payment made towards the demanded amounts. The Court decided to quash the impugned orders and remit the cases back to the respondent for fresh orders on merits and in accordance with the law. The quashed orders were to be treated as addendum to the respective show cause notices. The petitioner was directed to file a consolidated reply within 30 days, and the respondent was instructed to pass fresh orders within two months, ensuring the petitioner's opportunity to be heard.In conclusion, the Writ Petitions were disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.