Gold Wood Enterprises VS Assistant Commissioner

The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the Ext.P2 series of demand and recovery notices issued to him under the GST Act. These notices were issued following assessment orders dated 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019, covering the assessment periods from April 2018 to May 2019. The petitioner claims that he did not receive the assessment orders but, upon receiving the demand notices, promptly took action by filing the returns for the specified periods within thirty days of receiving the notices. This was done in an effort to benefit from the provision under Section 62 of the GST Act, which allows for the withdrawal of assessment orders if returns are filed within the stipulated timeframe.

According to the respondents’ statement, the assessment orders were indeed uploaded to the department’s web portal on the dates they were issued, namely 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019. Section 62 of the GST Act provides that an assessee can file returns within 30 days of receiving best judgment assessment orders to have those orders withdrawn. In this case, although the orders were available online on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019, the petitioner did not file his returns for the concerned periods until after receiving the demand notices.

The petitioner has challenged a series of demand and recovery notices issued under the GST Act, which were prompted by assessment orders dated 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 for the periods of April 2018 and May 2018 to May 2019 respectively. The petitioner claims that he did not receive these assessment orders but promptly filed his returns within thirty days of receiving the demand notices to benefit from the potential withdrawal of the assessment orders as per Section 62 of the GST Act. However, records show that the assessment orders were uploaded to the department’s web portal on the same dates they were issued, which means the petitioner had access to them online. According to Section 62, the petitioner should have filed the returns within thirty days from the date of the assessment orders being uploaded, not from the date of the demand notices. The petitioner’s returns were filed within thirty days from the receipt of the demand notices rather than from the dates the assessment orders were made available online. Furthermore, Section 169(c) and (d) of the GST Act stipulates that any communication sent to the e-mail address provided by an assessee or made available on the department’s common portal is considered effective. Therefore, the petitioner must acknowledge that the assessment orders were deemed communicated to him on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 as per the provisions of the statute.

The petitioner has come before the Court challenging a series of demand and recovery notices issued to him under the GST Act. These notices stem from assessment orders issued on November 25, 2019, and November 27, 2019, for the assessment periods from April 2018 to May 2019. The petitioner argues that he did not receive the assessment orders directly but took action upon receiving the demand notices by filing the necessary returns within thirty days to benefit from the withdrawal of the assessment orders as per Section 62 of the GST Act.

However, the respondents’ statement reveals that the assessment orders were uploaded to the department’s web portal on the same dates as they were issued. Section 62 of the GST Act provides an option to file returns within thirty days of receiving the orders issued on a best judgment basis to have them withdrawn. In this case, while the orders were uploaded to the portal on November 25 and 27, 2019, the petitioner did not file the returns within thirty days from these dates. Instead, the returns were filed within thirty days from the receipt of the demand notices.

Considering the facts and the legal provisions under Sections 169(c) and (d) of the GST Act, which state that communication through the email address provided during registration and making it available on the department’s portal is deemed effective, it is determined that the petitioner was effectively notified of the orders on November 25 and 27, 2019. Since the returns were filed late, more than thirty days after the service of the orders via the web portal, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of withdrawing the assessment orders under Section 62. Consequently, the Writ Petition challenging the assessment orders and demand notices is dismissed. The petitioner’s counsel has requested additional time to file appeals against the orders.

The petitioner has challenged a series of demand cum recovery notices issued under the GST Act, which were based on assessment orders dated 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 for the assessment periods from April 2018 to May 2019. The petitioner claims that these assessment orders were not served to him directly, but upon receiving the demand notices, he promptly filed his returns within thirty days to benefit from the withdrawal of the assessment orders as per Section 62 of the GST Act.

The respondents’ statement reveals that the assessment orders were uploaded on the department’s web portal on the dates they were issued. According to Section 62, the petitioner had the option to file returns within 30 days from the date of these orders being made available on the portal, but he did not do so. Instead, the returns were filed within 30 days from the receipt of the demand notices.

Under Section 169(c) and (d) of the GST Act, communication via e-mail or on the department’s portal is considered effective. Thus, the petitioner was deemed to have been notified of the orders on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019. Since the petitioner’s returns were filed after the 30-day period following the order dates on the portal, he is not eligible for the withdrawal of the assessment orders. Consequently, the Writ Petition challenging these orders and notices is dismissed.

However, acknowledging the petitioner’s need for time to appeal the orders, the court has ordered that the recovery proceedings be suspended for six weeks to allow the petitioner time to file statutory appeals with the appellate authority.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: