Suman Kumar VS State of Bihar

To seek the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to annul the ex parte order of assessment dated 14.09.2019 issued under reference number 674 in form GST ASMT-13 by respondent number 3 and to request a judicial determination that the statutory return filed by the petitioner in form GSTR 3B for June 2019 is valid, with the assertion that the declarations made in this return by the petitioner take precedence over any other conflicting assessments or orders.

In this case, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to annul the ex parte assessment order dated 14.09.2019, referenced as number 674 and issued in GST ASMT-13 by the third respondent. The petitioner also requests a judicial declaration affirming that the statutory return in GSTR 3B filed for June 2019 is valid, with the declarations made in it taking precedence over the figures determined by the fourth respondent based on the best judgment assessment under Section 62(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a declaration regarding the interpretation and application of specific provisions in the act.

The petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to annul an ex parte order of assessment dated 14.09.2019, issued under reference number 674 in form GST ASMT-13 by respondent number 3. Additionally, the petitioner requests a declaration affirming that the statutory return in form GSTR 3B for June 2019 filed by them is valid and that the declaration in this return should take precedence over the figures determined by respondent number 4 in the best judgment assessment under Section 62(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Section 16(2), 16(4), and 39, along with Sections 46 and 47 of the Act, allow for the filing of a monthly return after the due date and consider such a return valid and acceptable according to the law. The petitioner also requests a declaration that the jurisdiction under Section 62(1) to conduct a best judgment assessment for an assessee who has defaulted in filing a monthly return is not penal but discretionary, intended to address gaps in records concerning sales, purchases, tax liability, and input tax credit for a given month. Consequently, once a valid return is filed, even after the due date but in compliance with Section 47 of the Act, the best judgment assessment under Section 62(1) should be considered void.

The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash an ex parte assessment order dated September 14, 2019, issued under reference number 674 in GST ASMT-13 by the third respondent. They also request a declaration that the statutory return in form GSTR 3B filed for June 2019 is valid, and that the figures declared by the petitioner should take precedence over those determined by the fourth respondent in a best judgment assessment under Section 62(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Furthermore, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Sections 16(2), 16(4), 39, along with Sections 46 and 47, allow for filing of a monthly return after the due date, and such a return is considered valid and acceptable under the law. Additionally, the petitioner argues that the jurisdiction under Section 62(1) to make a best judgment assessment for a defaulted return is discretionary and not penal, meant to address gaps in records related to sales, purchases, tax liability, and input tax credit. Hence, a valid return filed post due date should replace the best judgment assessment. The petitioner also contends that Section 62(2) is directory, not mandatory, meaning that a valid return under Sections 39 and 47 should supersede the best judgment assessment despite the limitation period under Section 62(2). Lastly, the petitioner requests any other relief deemed appropriate based on the case’s facts and circumstances. After reviewing the arguments and records, the court is in agreement with the petitioner’s counsel.

The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an ex parte order of assessment dated 14.09.2019 issued under reference number 674 in form GST ASMT-13 by Respondent No. 3 The petitioner also requests a declaration that their statutory return in form GSTR 3B for June 2019 is valid and takes precedence over the figures determined by Respondent No. 4 through a best judgment assessment under Section 62(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Here, the petitioner argues that the statutory return filed after the due date should still be considered valid as per Sections 16(2), 16(4), 39, and related provisions of the Act They contend that Section 62(1) assessments, made when a return is not filed, are discretionary rather than penal, meant to fill gaps in the records of an assessee’s tax details Therefore, once a valid return is filed, even if late but in compliance with Section 47 of the Act, the best judgment assessment should be recalled and the filed return considered Additionally, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Section 62(2) of the Act is directory rather than mandatory, meaning any valid return filed according to Section 39 and Section 47 should replace the best judgment assessment despite any limitations in Section 62(2) Finally, the petitioner seeks any other relief deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case The court, after reviewing the case and hearing counsel, agrees with the petitioner’s argument that principles of natural justice were violated in passing the order and that the order dated 14.09.2019 by the Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Bhagalpur Circle, needs to be quashed since it was issued without providing adequate opportunity for hearing or reasoning, leading to financial liability and serious prejudice against the petitioner.

The petition seeks several reliefs, including the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash an ex parte assessment order dated September 14, 2019, issued under reference number 674 in GST ASMT-13 by the third respondent. The petitioner requests a declaration that their statutory return in GSTR 3B for June 2019 is valid and should take precedence over the figures determined by the fourth respondent in a best judgment assessment under Section 62(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Sections 16(2), 16(4), 39, and Sections 46 and 47 of the Act allow for the filing of monthly returns after the due date, rendering such returns valid and acceptable by law. Another declaration is sought to establish that Section 62(1) confers discretionary, non-penal jurisdiction for making best judgment assessments for defaulting on monthly returns, requiring the assessing authority to consider a valid late return and recall the best judgment assessment. Further, the petitioner seeks a declaration that Section 62(2) is directory and not mandatory, meaning that a valid return filed under Section 39 and Section 47 will replace a best judgment assessment despite the limitation period under Section 62(2). The petitioner also seeks any other appropriate reliefs.

After reviewing the case and hearing from the parties, it was found that the principles of natural justice were violated in the passing of the impugned order, which involved significant financial liability and was issued without adequate opportunity for the petitioner to be heard or given reasons. The Assistant Commissioner of State Taxes, Bhagalpur Circle, issued the order without following due process, warranting its quashing. The petitioner, represented by Shri Gautam Kejriwal, agreed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000 with the appropriate authority by March 9, 2021, without prejudice to their rights or the outcome of a reconsidered decision. The deposit does not affect the rights and contentions of the parties, and the case is to be remanded for fresh consideration. Consequently, the order is quashed on the grounds of procedural lapse.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: