M/S.Kamal Lochan Das vs. CT And GST Officer, Cuttack Ii Circle

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Kamal Lochan Das, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa challenging an intimation dated March 3, 2021. This intimation was issued by the CT & GST Officer, Cuttack II Circle, under Section 74(5) of the OGST Act. The Petitioner had already submitted a reply to this intimation on April 27, 2021. The revenue contended that the impugned intimation was merely a pre-assessment notice and that a formal assessment would only be framed after considering the Petitioner's response and issuing further notice. The tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the judgment.

Held

The Court held that the impugned intimation dated March 3, 2021, was a pre-assessment intimation under Section 74(5) of the OGST Act, and not a final assessment order. The Court noted that the Petitioner had already filed a reply to this intimation. Therefore, the Court directed the CT & GST Officer, Cuttack, to consider the Petitioner's response dated April 27, 2021, in light of the circular at Annexure-2 dated September 22, 2017. If the Officer proposed to frame an assessment, they were to proceed strictly in accordance with law by issuing a notice to the Petitioner under Section 74(1) of the OGST Act. The decision on the Petitioner's reply was to be taken by September 6, 2021, and communicated to the Petitioner by September 13, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that a pre-assessment intimation requires further procedural steps, including consideration of the assessee's reply and issuance of a proper notice, before a final assessment can be framed. The Petitioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate remedies if aggrieved by the subsequent decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned intimation dated March 3, 2021, issued by the CT & GST Officer under Section 74(5) of the OGST Act, is a final assessment order or a pre-assessment intimation requiring further proceedings. Contentions: Petitioner: The Petitioner sought a direction from the Court to consider their reply to the intimation. The specific arguments made by the Petitioner are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue (Opposite Parties): The revenue argued that the intimation was a pre-assessment notice under Section 74(5) of the OGST Act and that a formal assessment would only be framed after considering the Petitioner's reply and issuing a notice under Section 74(1) of the OGST Act. They relied on the procedural steps outlined in the OGST Act.