Pee Bee Enterprises VS Assistant Commissioner

The petitioner has approached the Court aggrieved by assessment orders and consequential demand notices issued under the GST Act, claiming that the assessments for April and May 2019 were completed on a best judgment basis due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner asserts that the assessment orders were dated August 20, 2019, but were not served until much later, and within 30 days of receipt, the petitioner filed the returns as permitted under Section 62 of the SGST Act, thereby contending that the assessment orders should be treated as withdrawn according to the provisions of Section 62 of the Act.

The petitioner has approached the Court aggrieved by assessment orders and consequential demand notices issued under the GST Act, arguing that assessments for April and May 2019 were completed under Section 62 of the SGST Act on a best judgment basis due to non-filing of returns, and that these assessment orders, dated August 20, 2019, were not served until much later; within 30 days of receiving the orders, the petitioner filed the returns as permitted under Section 62, contending that the assessment orders should be treated as withdrawn under the Act, however, the 1st respondent, through a statement to the Court, asserts that the assessment order issued on August 20, 2019, was emailed to the registered email of the petitioner, who then filed the returns for April and May 2019 only on October 30, 2019, with a delay of 71 days, hence the assessment order cannot be withdrawn and the petitioner is liable to pay the amount as per the assessment order followed by a demand notice, with the petitioner failing to produce the original order received on August 20, 2019, instead providing a copy attached with the demand notice.

The petitioner has approached the Court aggrieved by assessment orders and consequential demand notices issued under the GST Act, contending that the assessments for April and May 2019 were completed on a best judgment basis due to non-filing of returns, and although the assessment orders were dated 20.8.2019, they were not served on him till much later, and within 30 days of receiving the orders, he filed the returns as permitted under the SGST Act, arguing that the assessment orders should be treated as withdrawn as per the Act; however, the respondent stated that the assessment order dated 20.8.2019 was issued via the common portal and emailed to the registered email id, but the petitioner filed the returns on 30.10.2019, 71 days later, and since this was not within 30 days, the assessment could not be withdrawn, making the petitioner liable to pay as per the assessment, followed by a demand notice, noting that the petitioner has not provided the original order issued on 20.8.2019 but only the copy attached to the demand notice, and further, the proper officer issued the order and since the returns were not filed within 30 days, the petitioner has a liability to pay the demands raised, and even considering the dispatch date, there was still a delay as the order was acknowledged on 30.09.2019 and the return was filed only on 30.10.2019.

The petitioner has approached the Court, challenging the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P2) and the consequent demand notices (Exts.P8 and P9) issued under the GST Act. The petitioner argues that the assessments for April and May 2019 were completed under Section 62 of the SGST Act based on a best judgment assessment due to the non-filing of returns for those months. The assessment orders, dated 20.8.2019, were allegedly not served on the petitioner until much later. Within 30 days of receiving the orders, the petitioner filed the returns as allowed under Section 62 of the SGST Act, arguing that the assessment orders should be considered withdrawn as per Section 62. The 1st respondent, through a statement to the Court, explained that the assessment order dated 20.8.2019 was issued via the common portal, and the order was emailed to the petitioner’s registered email ID immediately. Despite this, the petitioner filed the returns for April and May 2019 on 30.10.2019, a delay of 71 days, meaning the assessment order could not be withdrawn, and the petitioner was liable to pay the amount specified in the assessment order, followed by a demand notice in DRC.07. The petitioner has not provided a copy of the ASMT-13 order dated 20.8.2019 received on that date via the common portal but instead provided a copy attached to the demand notice in DRC.07. The proper officer, K. Binil, Assistant Commissioner, issued the ASMT.13 order. Since the petitioner did not file the returns within 30 days (by 18.09.2019), they were liable to pay the demands raised in the assessment order. The order, signed by K. Binil, was dispatched and acknowledged by the petitioner on 30.09.2019. Even considering the dispatch date alone, there was a one-day delay in filing the return, as the postal acknowledgment was on 30.09.2019, and the return was filed on 30.10.2019. The proper officer, Smt. Jhancy C.J., who took over the charge, issued the demand notice in DRC.07 and generated the ASMT.13 again to be issued with the DRC.07. The order date of 20.08.2019 remained the same, but the proper officer’s name changed to Smt. Jhancy. The ASMT.13 was initially sent via email on 20.08.2019, and a manual copy was served and acknowledged by the petitioner on 30.09.2019. A computer screenshot reflecting the date of the notice and order for the petitioner and a copy of the postal acknowledgment dated 30.09.2019 for the assessment order dated 20.08.2019 were provided as evidence.

The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the assessment orders and subsequent demand notices issued under the GST Act. The petitioner contends that the assessments for April and May 2019 were completed under Section 62 of the SGST Act based on the best judgment method due to non-filing of returns for those months. Although the assessment orders were dated August 20, 2019, the petitioner claims they were not served until much later. Within 30 days from the receipt of the orders, the petitioner filed the returns as allowed under Section 62 of the SGST Act, arguing that this should invalidate the assessment orders.

The first respondent’s statement, as directed by the Court, clarifies that the assessment order dated August 20, 2019, was issued using the common portal and emailed to the petitioner’s registered email address on the same day. The petitioner, however, filed the returns for April and May 2019 only on October 30, 2019, which was 71 days after the order and outside the 30-day period prescribed for filing the returns. As a result, the respondent argues that the assessment order cannot be withdrawn, and the petitioner remains liable for the amounts stated in the order. Furthermore, the petitioner did not produce the actual copy of the order dated August 20, 2019, but only the copy attached to the demand notice for review by the Court.

The proper officer, Sri. K. Binil, issued the order, and although the petitioner received the manual copy on September 30, 2019, the returns were still filed late. The subsequent officer, Smt. Jhancy C.J., issued a demand notice along with a reissued ASMT.13 form, reflecting the original date of August 20, 2019, but with her name as the proper officer. The ASMT.13 was initially sent by email and later by registered post.

The Court, after considering the facts and submissions, notes that the assessment orders were served through the web portal on August 20, 2019, and an email was sent as well. Although the petitioner claims non-receipt of the email and only received the order via post later, the service through the web portal is statutorily valid under Section 161(1)(c) and (d) of the SGST Act. Therefore, the petitioner is deemed to have received the order on the stated date for the purpose of filing the returns.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: