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. The petitioner failed to file their GST returns for December 2024. Following this non-compliance, the respondent issued a GSTR 3A notice on January 30, 2025, and subsequently passed an impugned best judgment assessment order on March 2025. The petitioner then filed their belated returns on September 16, 2025. The petitioner's bank account was frozen by the respondent. 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 best judgment assessment order passed under Section 62(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is automatically deemed to have been withdrawn upon the filing of a belated return, as mandated by Section 62(2) of the Act. The Court reasoned that while the statute prescribes a time limit for filing returns, judicial pronouncements have established that this time limit is not mandatory. Therefore, the delay in filing the petitioner's returns was condoned. The Court declared the impugned order of assessment as automatically withdrawn. The Court also directed the respondent to immediately lift the attachment order made on the petitioner's bank account. The respondent was granted liberty to verify the returns filed by the petitioner and, if any short-payment is found, to issue a fresh show cause notice and make an appropriate demand.
Key Issues
1. Whether the best judgment assessment order passed under Section 62(1) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is automatically deemed withdrawn upon the filing of a belated return under Section 62(2) of the Act, despite the delay. The petitioner argued that once a belated return is filed, the assessment order is deemed withdrawn as per Section 62(2) of the Act, and that the time limit for filing such returns is not mandatory, citing judicial precedents. The petitioner further contended that the freezing of their bank account was unjustified given the deemed withdrawal of the assessment order. The respondent, the State Tax Officer, did not present any arguments in the judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 62, Section 39, Section 45, Section 46, Section 44, Section 73, Section 74, Section 50, Section 47
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
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 December 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 30.01.2025. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on -.03.2025. 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 this time limit is not mandatory. Once the late return has been filed, the order 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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.