P.Senthilkumar vs. The State Tax Officer(St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, P. Senthil Kumar, is an assessee under the jurisdiction of the respondent, The State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle. The petitioner failed to file their GST returns for September 2024. Consequently, the respondent issued a GSTR 3A notice on 28.10.2024 and passed an order of best judgment assessment on 14.11.2024. The petitioner subsequently filed their returns belatedly on 16.09.2025. The petitioner's bank account was frozen. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the assessment order and direct the respondent to defreeze their bank account.
Held
The Court held that the time limit for filing a belated return under Section 62(2) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is not mandatory. The Court reasoned that once a belated return is filed, the assessment order made under Section 62(1) is deemed to have been withdrawn, as stipulated by Section 62(2). The Court found that the petitioner had filed their returns belatedly, and therefore, the impugned order of best judgment assessment dated 14.11.2024 stood automatically withdrawn. The Court directed the respondent to verify the returns filed by the petitioner and, if any short payment is found, to issue a fresh show cause notice. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondent to immediately lift the attachment order made on the petitioner's bank account, considering the delay in filing returns was condoned due to the statutory mandate of withdrawal of the assessment order upon filing the belated return.
Key Issues
1. Whether the time limit for filing a belated return under Section 62(2) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is mandatory, and if not, what is the consequence of filing a belated return after a best judgment assessment order has been passed? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the time limit for filing a belated return is not mandatory, and once a belated return is filed, the best judgment assessment order is deemed to have been withdrawn as per Section 62(2) of the Act. They relied on judicial pronouncements stating that such time limits are not rigid. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not explicitly record any arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the non-mandatory nature of the time limit or the consequence of filing a belated return. The judgment notes that the petitioner failed to file returns and the respondent proceeded with the assessment.
Sections Cited
Section 62, Section 73, Section 74, Section 46, Section 39, Section 45, Section 44, Section 50, Section 47
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard both sides. 2.The writ petitioner is an assessee coming under the juri iction of the respondent. The petitioner failed to file their returns for the month of September 2024. Section 62 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 reads as follows:- “62.Assessment of non-filers of returns. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 73 or section 74, where a registered person fails to furnish the return under section 39 or section 45, even after the service of a notice under section 46, the proper officer may proceed to assess the tax liability of the said person to the best of his judgment taking into account all the relevant material which is available or which he has gathered and issue an assessment order within a period of five years from the date specified under section 44 for furnishing of the annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid relates. (2) Where the registered person furnishes a valid return within thirty days of the service of the assessment order under sub-section (1), the said assessment order shall be deemed to have been withdrawn but the liability for payment of interest under sub-section (1) of section 50 or for payment of late fee under section 47 shall continue.” Invoking the said provision, GSTR 3A notice was issued on 28.10.2024. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 14.11.2024. While so, the petitioner herein filed their returns belatedly on 16.09.2025. Though the statute prescribes time limit of 60 days for filing the late returns, Courts have held that 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis this time limit is not mandatory. Once the late return has been filed, the order making best judgement assessment is deemed to have been withdrawn. Applying the statutory mandate set out in Section 62(2) of the Act, it is declared that the impugned order stands automatically withdrawn. It is open to the respondent herein to verify the returns filed by the writ petitioner. If there is any short-payment, fresh show cause notice can be issued making appropriate demand from the assessee.
The petitioner's bank account has been frozen. It is true that the returns were not filed within time. However, considering the fact that the time limit set out in the statute is not mandatory, delay in filing the returns stands condoned. The statutory mandate is that once the late return is filed, the order making the assessment is deemed to have been withdrawn. Therefore, the respondent is directed to lift the attachment order made on the writ petitioner's bank account immediately.
With the aforesaid liberty to the respondent, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No rmi 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. rmi To The State Tax Officer (ST), Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle, Tuticorin District.
2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.