Bridge Hygiene Services Private Limited VS State Tax Officer

Orders of assessment made under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, with respect to different assessees for various periods in the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, were challenged in the respective writ petitions concerned with these appeals. The appellants/assessees sought to quash these assessment orders, contending primarily that the impugned orders failed to reflect details of the materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer.

Orders of assessment issued under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as ‘the Act’) for various assessees across different periods in the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were contested in the respective writ petitions associated with these appeals. The appellants, or assessees, sought to annul these assessment orders primarily arguing that the orders lacked detailed information about the materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer to make the best judgment assessment, as required by Section 62(1) of the Act. Essentially, their argument was that the orders were issued in a mechanical fashion, without sufficient consideration and application of mind. The learned Single Judge, when addressing these writ petitions, observed that the appellants had not utilized the provisions available under the Act to challenge or contest the orders effectively.

Orders of assessment made under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for various assessees across different periods in the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, were contested in related writ petitions. The appellants challenged these orders by arguing that they lacked the necessary details and evidence that should have been considered by the Assessing Officer in making the best judgment assessments as required by Section 62(1) of the Act. Their main contention was that the orders were issued in a mechanical manner, without a genuine application of mind. The learned Single Judge, while addressing these writ petitions, observed that the appellants had not utilized the opportunity provided under Section 62(2) of the Act to submit valid returns within 30 days after receiving the impugned assessment orders. By not taking advantage of this provision, the appellants could not avoid the liabilities set forth in the orders. Additionally, it was noted that the court could not extend the 30-day deadline stipulated in Section 62(2) for filing returns, limiting the court’s ability to offer relief beyond this period.

The appeals in question challenge the orders of assessment issued under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for various assessees across different periods in the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The appellants argue that these orders should be annulled on the grounds that they lack detailed information regarding the materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer for making the best judgment assessments as required under Section 62(1) of the Act. The contention is that these orders were issued in a mechanical manner, lacking a proper application of mind.

The learned Single Judge, addressing the writ petitions, noted that the appellants failed to utilize the provisions under Section 62(2) of the Act. This provision allows assessees to avoid the liability imposed by the assessment orders if they file valid returns within 30 days after receiving the assessment orders. The judge observed that the court cannot extend the 30-day period stipulated in Section 62(2) beyond what is prescribed, as this period is crucial and strictly interpreted due to its basis in a taxing statute. This strict adherence is necessary because it provides a mechanism for assessees to challenge and possibly overturn assessment orders made on a best judgment basis.

In the case concerning appeals against assessment orders made under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the appellants challenged the orders of assessment for the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. They contended that these orders did not include the details of the materials relied upon by the Assessing Officer to make the best judgment assessment, as required by Section 62(1). Essentially, the appellants argued that the orders were issued in a mechanical manner without proper consideration.

The learned Single Judge, addressing these writ petitions, noted that the appellants failed to utilize the opportunity provided under Section 62(2) to file valid returns within 30 days of receiving the assessment orders. Had they done so, it might have mitigated their liability under these orders. The Judge also observed that the court could not extend the 30-day limit for filing returns stipulated by Section 62(2), as this timeframe is strictly enforced in taxing statutes. The Judge concluded that the writ petitions lacked merit and therefore dismissed them.

In their writ appeals, the assessees argued that the Assessing Officer’s reliance on returns from previous periods was not legally justified.

The orders of assessment issued under Section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning different assessees for the financial years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 were challenged through writ petitions. The appellants contended that these orders did not adequately detail the materials the Assessing Officer relied upon to make the best judgment assessments as required by Section 62(1) of the Act. They argued that the orders were issued in a mechanical manner without proper consideration.

The learned Single Judge, addressing these writ petitions, noted that the appellants had not utilized the opportunity provided by Section 62(2) of the Act to file valid returns within 30 days of receiving the assessment orders. This failure meant that the appellants could not avoid the liability imposed by the assessment orders. The judge also observed that the court could not extend the 30-day limit stipulated in Section 62(2) since it is a strict provision within a taxing statute, and the appellants’ attempts to challenge the assessments were without merit. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

In the current writ appeals, the assessees argue that the Assessing Officer improperly relied on returns from previous periods when issuing the assessment orders and failed to consider the details in the returns for the periods under review. The Government Pleader for the respondents pointed out that the appellants had an effective remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act and argued that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention under Article 226.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: