Sri Lakshman Security Services vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Taxes

Held

The Court held that the assessment order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the 1st respondent, was invalid on both grounds raised by the petitioner. Firstly, following its own precedent in W.P.No.35710 of 2022, the Court found that a lack of signature on the assessment order renders it invalid. Secondly, the Court reiterated its finding from the aforementioned precedent that any assessment for a period prior to October 2020 must be preceded by a notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules, and non-issuance of such a notice invalidates the assessment. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned assessment order was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the 1st respondent for passing fresh orders after issuing a notice under Rule 142(1A) and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with the CGST Act and Rules. The period from the date of the impugned order to the date of receipt of the current order by the 1st respondent was excluded for limitation purposes. Coercive steps against the petitioner were stayed.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Lakshman Security Services, was assessed to tax under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the period 2017-2018 to 2021-2022. The assessment order, dated 30.12.2023, was passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes (1st respondent). The petitioner challenged this order by filing a writ petition, raising two primary grounds: firstly, that the assessment order was not signed by the Assessing Officer, and secondly, that the order was passed without a preceding notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules. The court considered a previous judgment in W.P.No.35710 of 2022.

Key Issues

1. Whether an assessment order under the GST Act is rendered invalid due to the lack of signature by the Assessing Officer, as per the provisions of the CGST Act and Rules? 2. Whether an assessment for a period prior to October 2020 is invalid if it is not preceded by a notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was invalid on two grounds: (a) it was not signed by the Assessing Officer, rendering it invalid, and (b) it was passed without issuing a notice under Rule 142(1A) of the GST Rules, which is mandatory for assessments concerning periods prior to October 2020. The petitioner relied on this Court's decision in W.P.No.35710 of 2022. Respondent's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.