Arumugam vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Arumugam.S, proprietor of M/s.Kumar Plantations, a works contractor registered under the GST Act, 2017, filed a writ petition challenging an order of best assessment dated 19.08.2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin II Assessment Circle. The petitioner failed to file the monthly return for June 2023 in GSTR3B within the stipulated time, leading to the best assessment order. The petitioner contended that he filed the return on 25.08.2023, along with the prescribed late fee, within 30 days of the assessment order's service, and this fact was not considered. The respondents are the Deputy Commissioner (ST(FAC)) and the State Tax Officer.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner contended that he filed the monthly return for June 2023 on 25.08.2023, within 30 days of the service of the assessment order, along with the required late fee, and that this fact was not considered. The Court also noted the respondents' submission that the impugned order could be set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration as per Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration in light of Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017. The Court also directed the release of the bank attachment. The ratio decidendi is that a best judgment assessment order is deemed withdrawn if a valid return is filed within 30 days of its service, as per Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017, and the liability for interest and late fees continues. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the best judgment assessment order dated 19.08.2023, passed by the State Tax Officer, is liable to be quashed as illegal and contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, specifically Section 62(2)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that as per Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017, if a registered person furnishes a valid return within thirty days of the service of the assessment order, the assessment order is deemed to have been withdrawn. The petitioner submitted that he filed the monthly return for June 2023 on 25.08.2023, within the 30-day period, along with the applicable late fee, and therefore, the impugned best assessment order should be withdrawn. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Additional Government Pleader, did not contest the petitioner's claim on merits but suggested that instead of granting an interim order, the impugned order could be set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration in accordance with Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017.