M/S. Best Mobile vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Best Mobile, represented by its Proprietor Mohamed Samsudeen, filed a writ petition challenging two assessment orders passed by the second respondent, the Deputy State Tax Officer – I, Aruppukottai. These orders were dated 25.10.2023 and 19.03.2024, pertaining to the financial years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, respectively. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested fresh assessment orders under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, arguing that discrepancies between GSTR-2A and GSTR-1 were due to reasons other than fraud or wilful misstatement. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated. The procedural history involves the filing of this writ petition.

Held

The Court did not decide the substantive issues raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the assessment orders or the applicability of Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017. The Court's decision was based solely on a procedural ground raised by the respondents. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents pointed out that the petitioner had challenged two separate assessment orders in a single writ petition, rendering the petition not maintainable. The petitioner's counsel, at this juncture, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file separate writ petitions for each impugned order. The Court recorded this submission and the endorsement made by the petitioner's counsel. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to file fresh, separate writ petitions. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was dismissed on withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether a single writ petition is maintainable for challenging two separate assessment orders passed by the respondent authorities for distinct financial years (2017-2018 and 2018-2019)? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and requested fresh assessment orders under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, contending that the discrepancies between GSTR-2A and GSTR-1 were not due to fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The petitioner implicitly argued for the maintainability of the writ petition to address these issues. Revenue's Argument: The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents argued that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has challenged two distinct assessment orders in a single writ petition.