Tvl. Rekha vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Rekha, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.05.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer - 2, Palakkarai Assessment Circle. This order was a Best Judgement Assessment under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, issued because the petitioner failed to upload their monthly return within the stipulated time. The tax period in question is March 2024. The petitioner contended that they subsequently uploaded the monthly return in Form GSTR 3B, which was within a condonable limit. The respondent's counsel could not deny that the return was filed, albeit beyond 60 days but within a further 60 days of the condonable limit.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned order dated 16.05.2024, which was a Best Judgement Assessment passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, should be set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they had subsequently uploaded their monthly return in Form GSTR 3B, which was within a condonable limit. The respondent's counsel could not deny this fact. The Court directed that the authorities should take into account the returns filed by the petitioner while completing the assessment for the particular year and pass final orders in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that a Best Judgement Assessment should not be sustained when the assessee has subsequently filed the return within a condonable period, and the authorities have not denied such filing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Best Judgement Assessment order passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed when the petitioner subsequently filed the return within a condonable period? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction because they had subsequently filed their monthly return (Form GSTR 3B). They contended that this filing was within the condonable limit available to the respondent authority. The petitioner relied on the principle that if a return is filed, even belatedly, it should be considered by the authorities, especially if it falls within a period that can be condoned. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not deny the fact that the petitioner had filed the return. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the application of Section 62 in light of the belated filing.