M/S. Madhura Meenakshi Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Challenging the Assessment Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 09.07.2024 passed by respondent No.1 for the tax periods 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2023-24 and Rectification Order in Form GST DRC-08 dated 09.08.2024 for the tax period 2019-20, present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of works contract services, has completely entrusted his day to day GST affairs to a Chartered Accountant for carrying out business operations. Due to lack of knowledge of GST portal activities, issuance of separate show cause notices dated 16.05.2024 for all the tax periods before passing the impugned orders, therefore, were not within the petitioner’s knowledge. He further submits that respondent No.1 has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) and on that ground alone, writ petition is liable to be allowed.

That apart, referring to the material filed along with the writ petition i.e., Summary Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 09.07.2024, he submits that the concerned officer has not affixed his signature on the said orders, it is without DIN, as such, lacks legal efficacy. He also relies on the decision of this Court in SRK Enterprises reported in (2023) 13 Centax 60 (A.P.) (W.P No.29397 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023). He also submits that petitioner, even on merits, has a good case, hence, urges for allowing the writ petition.

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader refutes the contention insofar as following the procedure contemplated under Rule 142(1A) of the Central Rules i.e., with regard to issuance of notice prior to finalizing the assessment. He also submits that the petitioner having received the notices failed to submit reply and Assessment Orders were passed long back i.e., on 09.07.2024, no explanation is forth coming as to the delay in filing the present writ petition. Further that petitioner has a remedy of appeal and instead of availing the same, he filed present writ petition and the same cannot be entertained.

We have considered the submissions made and perused material on record.

At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on merits, petitioner has got a good case, we are not inclined to examine the same more particularly, since writ petition is otherwise deserves to be allowed on the ground of unsigned Assessment Orders by respondent No.1 for tax periods i.e., 2018-19, 2020-21 and 2023-24. 8. Though learned Assistant Government Pleader, on oral instructions, has submitted that a prior notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the Assessment Order in question, at this stage, we deem it not necessary to examine the matter by inviting counter-affidavit. Even otherwise, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned Assessment Orders dated 09.07.2024 are unsigned merits acceptance. Be that as it may.

The order under challenge is not sustainable and the same is set aside in view of the decision in W.P No.29397 of 2023 dated 10.11.2023, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

However in the light of the submission that Assessment Orders are passed in the year 2024, we deem it appropriate to impose a condition that the petitioner shall deposit 20% of the disputed tax for each Assessment Year, within a period of eight (08) weeks from today. On such deposit, the assessment proceedings may be completed after issuing fresh show cause notices and affording due opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law.