Mangomeadows Agricultural Pleasure Land (P) Ltd VS State Tax Officer

The petitioner, who is registered as an assessee under the Goods and Services Tax Act with the 1st respondent, failed to file returns starting from April 2018 However, despite this lapse, the petitioner eventually submitted the returns up to October 2018 and paid the associated tax along with interest The issue raised in the writ petition concerns Ext.P1, which is an assessment order issued by the 1st respondent under Section 62 of the GST Act following a best judgment assessment.

The petitioner, an assessee under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act), who is registered with the 1st respondent, failed to file returns from April 2018 onwards. Although there were delays in filing, the returns up to October 2018 were eventually filed, with the tax due and interest paid. The petitioner’s grievance, expressed in the writ petition, is directed against the Ext.P1 order of assessment issued by the 1st respondent under Section 62 of the GST Act, which was based on a best judgment assessment. The petitioner argues that despite the Act’s provision allowing for an automatic setting aside of the best judgment assessment if a valid return is submitted within 30 days of receiving the assessment order, this provision is ineffective in their case. The petitioner contends that even if they were to file the returns within the 30-day extension period from receiving the assessment orders, they would still be unable to pay the admitted tax liability as shown.

The petitioner, an assessee under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act) on the rolls of the 1st respondent, failed to file returns starting from April 2018 and though returns up to October 2018 were later filed with the tax due and interest paid, the petitioner is challenging Ext.P1, an order of assessment made by the 1st respondent under Section 62 of the GST Act based on a best judgment assessment. In the petition, the petitioner argues that while the Act provides for an automatic nullification of the best judgment assessment if the registered dealer submits a valid return within 30 days of receiving the assessment order, this provision is deemed ineffective in their case because even if the returns were filed within the extended 30-day period, the petitioner would still be unable to settle the admitted tax liability as shown in the returns. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a court order to annul Ext.P1, contending that the 1st respondent did not follow the proper guidelines specified in Section 62 when issuing the best judgment assessment.

The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act), had been non-compliant with filing returns from April 2018 onwards. Despite this default, the petitioner eventually filed returns up to October 2018 and paid the due tax along with interest. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1, an assessment order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 62 of the GST Act, which was based on a best judgment assessment. The petitioner argues that while the Act allows for an automatic nullification of the best judgment assessment if a valid return is submitted within 30 days of receiving the assessment order, this provision is impractical for the petitioner. The concern is that even if the petitioner submits the returns within the allowed period, he would be unable to pay the admitted tax liability as shown in the returns. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a court directive to quash the Ext.P1 order, claiming that the 1st respondent did not follow the prescribed guidelines under Section 62 for issuing the assessment order. After reviewing the case and hearing the submissions from both the petitioner’s counsel and the Government Pleader, it is noted that Section 62 of the GST Act permits a best judgment assessment only if an assessee fails to provide required details for assessment through timely return filing.

The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act), had defaulted on filing returns starting from April 2018 and although the returns up to October 2018 were eventually filed along with the tax due plus interest, the issue at hand concerns the Ext.P1 order of assessment issued by the 1st respondent under Section 62 of the GST Act, following a best judgment assessment. In the writ petition, the petitioner contends that despite the Act’s provision for the automatic setting aside of a best judgment assessment if a valid return is furnished within 30 days of receiving the assessment order, this provision appears impractical for his situation as even if returns were filed within this period, the petitioner would be unable to pay the admitted tax liability as shown in the returns. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a directive to quash Ext.P1 on the grounds that the 1st respondent did not follow the criteria specified in Section 62 while issuing the assessment orders based on best judgment.

Upon review of the case, including arguments presented by both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Government Pleader, it is noted that according to Section 62 of the SGST Act, the best judgment assessment is applicable when an assessee fails to provide required details for assessment on time. The proper officer is then required to finalize the assessment based on available relevant material or evidence. Furthermore, Section 62(2) states that if a valid return is submitted within 30 days of receiving the best judgment assessment order, the assessment order will be considered withdrawn, except for the ongoing liability to pay interest for any late tax payment.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: