Sri Kubera Constructions Pvt Ltd VS State of Kerala

The petitioner company has approached this court due to grievances with Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders passed against it under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 In the writ petition, the petitioner claims that the assessments were concluded without considering the returns filed, which would have indicated the correct turnover subject to assessment Instead, the assessments were completed based on past assessments, leading to an exaggerated demand against the petitioner Additionally, as a consequence of Exts.P24 and P25 orders, Ext.P27 notice has been issued to the petitioner, threatening coercive steps for the recovery of the amounts confirmed by the Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders.

The petitioner company has approached this court, challenging Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In its writ petition, the petitioner argues that the assessments were concluded without considering the returns it filed, which would have accurately indicated the turnover subject to assessment. Instead, the assessments were based on the petitioner’s past assessments, leading to an inflated demand. Following Exts.P24 and P25 orders, Ext.P27 notice was issued, threatening coercive recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders. The court has heard arguments from the petitioner’s counsel, the Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.8 and 9, and the Government Pleader for the State’s official respondents. Upon considering the case’s facts and circumstances and the submissions made, it is noted that Exts.P24 and P25 orders were passed per Section 62 of the CGST Act, based on the finding that the petitioner had not submitted the necessary returns within the time required by the Act, leading to assessments completed on a best judgment basis.

The petitioner company has approached the court, aggrieved by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders passed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the assessments were concluded without considering the returns it filed, which would have shown the accurate turnover subject to assessment. Instead, the assessments relied on past assessments, resulting in an exaggerated demand. Additionally, following Exts.P24 and P25 orders, Ext.P27 notice was issued, threatening coercive recovery steps for the confirmed amounts. The court heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.8 and 9, and the learned Government Pleader for the State. Upon considering the case’s facts and circumstances and the submissions made, it was found that Exts.P24 and P25 orders were issued under Section 62 of the CGST Act after the petitioner failed to file the necessary returns within the stipulated time. Consequently, the assessments were completed on a best judgment basis. It was noted that the petitioner could have had the assessments automatically withdrawn by furnishing the returns within 30 days of the assessment orders, which would have allowed a fresh opportunity for a proper assessment. However, the petitioner did not avail of this facility for reasons unknown. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner should approach the statutory Appellate Authority to appeal against Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders. The writ petition challenge against Exts.P24 and P25 cannot be maintained due to the availability of an effective alternate remedy, as the assessment orders do not suffer from jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice rules.

The petitioner company has approached this court aggrieved by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders passed against it under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 In the writ petition, it is its case that the assessments have been concluded against it without taking note of the returns filed by it, which would have indicated the extent of the turnover that could have been subjected to assessment Contrary to this, the assessments have been completed by relying on past assessments of the petitioner, thereby resulting in an exaggerated demand against the petitioner It is further stated that, consequent to Exts.P24 and P25 orders, Ext.P27 notice has also been issued to the petitioner threatening it with coercive steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.8 and 9 and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that Exts.P24 and P25 orders have been passed in terms of Section 62 of the CGST Act, after finding that the petitioner had not furnished the necessary returns within the time contemplated under the Act for filing the same It was therefore that the assessments were completed on a best judgment basis as against the petitioner I also note from the assessment orders impugned that, had the petitioner availed the opportunity of furnishing the returns within a period of 30 days from the date of the aforesaid assessment orders, the assessment would have been automatically withdrawn and the petitioner would have obtained a fresh opportunity to produce the relevant material for the purposes of a proper assessment The said facility was not, however, availed by the petitioner for reasons best known to it Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the only alternative for the petitioner is to approach the statutory Appellate Authority through an appeal against Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders The challenge in the writ petition against Exts.P24 and P25 orders cannot be maintained in view of the availability of an effective alternate remedy against the assessment orders impugned herein because I find that the assessment orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of the rules of natural justice Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would require some time to move the Appellate Authority and that he is faced with immediate threat of coercive steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders, I direct that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority through an appeal against Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders.

The petitioner company has approached this court aggrieved by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders passed against it under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In the writ petition, it is its case that the assessments have been concluded against it without taking note of the returns filed by it, which would have indicated the extent of the turnover that could have been subjected to assessment. Contrary to this, the assessments have been completed by relying on past assessments of the petitioner, thereby resulting in an exaggerated demand against the petitioner. It is further stated that, consequent to Exts.P24 and P25 orders, Ext.P27 notice has also been issued to the petitioner threatening it with coercive steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against it by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents Nos.8 and 9, and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that Exts.P24 and P25 orders have been passed in terms of Section 62 of the CGST Act, after finding that the petitioner had not furnished the necessary returns within the time contemplated under the Act for filing the same. It was therefore that the assessments were completed on best judgment basis as against the petitioner. I also note from the assessment orders impugned that, had the petitioner availed the opportunity of furnishing the returns within a period of 30 days from the date of the aforesaid assessment orders, the assessment would have been automatically withdrawn and the petitioner would have obtained a fresh opportunity to produce the relevant material for the purposes of a proper assessment. The said facility was not, however, availed by the petitioner for reasons best known to it. Under such circumstance, I am of the view that the only alternative for the petitioner is to approach the statutory Appellate Authority through an appeal against Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders. The challenge in the writ petition against Exts.P24 and P25 orders cannot be maintained in view of the availability of an effective alternate remedy against the assessment orders impugned herein because I find that the assessment orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or violation of the rules of natural justice. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would require some time to move the Appellate Authority and that he is faced with immediate threat of coercive steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against him by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders, I direct that recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority through an appeal against Exts.P24 and P25 assessment orders in the meantime. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the respondents for further action.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: