Hash Constructions VS Deputy Commissioner

The petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging an appellate order (Ext.P7) passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), which rejected the petitioner’s appeals due to being time-barred and for non-payment of 1% of the court fees as mandated by the KLBF. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was unable to file the required monthly GST returns for the period from April 2018 to May 2019. As a result, the first respondent, the Assessing Officer, issued several orders under Section 62 of the GST Act for this period. These orders are annexed in FORM GST ASMT-13, dated 15.05.2019 and 14.07.2019, and are included as Exts.P1 to P1(m) in the writ petition.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the appellate order (Ext.P7) issued by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), which dismissed the petitioner’s appeals due to being time-barred and for failing to deposit 1% of the court fees as per KLBF. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was unable to file the required monthly returns under the GST Act for the period from April 2018 to May 2019, resulting in the Assessing Officer issuing several orders under Section 62 of the GST Act for that period. These orders, documented in FORM GST ASMT-13 and dated 15.05.2019 and 14.07.2019, are attached to the writ petition as Exts.P1 to P1(m). The counsel further stated that following the Assessing Officer’s best judgment orders, subsequent orders in FORM GST DRC-07, dated 22.10.2019, 27.11.2019, and 30.11.2019, were also issued.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the appellate order (Ext.P7) issued by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), which dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner due to being barred by limitation and the non-deposit of 1% of the court fees as per the Kerala Legal Benefit Fund (KLBF). The petitioner, represented by learned counsel, argued that they were unable to file the required monthly returns under the GST Act for the period from April 2018 to May 2019. Consequently, the first respondent, acting as the Assessing Officer, issued several orders under Section 62 of the GST Act for this period. These orders, detailed in FORM GST ASMT-13 dated 15.05.2019 and 14.07.2019, are attached as Exts.P1 to P1(m) in the writ petition. Following the best judgment assessments by the Assessing Officer, additional orders in FORM GST DRC-07 [Exts.P2 to P2(m)] dated 22.10.2019, 27.11.2019, and 30.11.2019 were issued by the first respondent. The petitioner subsequently filed statutory appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act, with copies of the appeals submitted as Ext.P4 to P4(m) in the petition. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the initial orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act 2017 (Exts.P1 to P1(m)) are not appealable and that the actual appellate order is the one in FORM GST DRC-07, which is the final order. To support this argument, the counsel highlighted that the order at Ext.P1 states that if the return is filed within 30 days of service, the order is deemed to be withdrawn.

The petitioner challenges the appellate order (Ext.P7) issued by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), which rejected the petitioner’s appeals due to being barred by limitation and for not depositing 1% of the court fees as required by the KLBF. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner was unable to file the required monthly GST returns from April 2018 to May 2019, leading the Assessing Officer (the 1st respondent) to issue several orders under Section 62 of the GST Act for that period, documented in FORM GST ASMT-13 (Exts.P1 to P1(m)). Following these orders, the Assessing Officer issued final orders in FORM GST DRC-07 (Exts.P2 to P2(m)) on various dates in 2019. The petitioner then filed statutory appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act, with copies of the appeal memos attached as Ext.P4 to P4(m). The petitioner’s counsel contended that the orders under Section 62 (Exts.P1 to P1(m)) are not appealable and that the final appealable orders are those in FORM GST DRC-07. The counsel highlighted that according to Ext.P1, if returns are filed within 30 days of the order, the order is deemed withdrawn. By referencing the chart at Ext.P8, the counsel argued that most of the appeals against the orders in FORM GST DRC-07 were within the limitation period, except for one which had a condonable delay. Therefore, the counsel argued that the Appellate Authority’s rejection of the appeals based on the limitation ground was erroneous.

The petitioner challenges the appellate order (Ext.P7) passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the CGST Act, which rejected the petitioner’s appeals for being barred by limitation and for non-payment of 1% court fees as per KLBF. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner could not file monthly returns for April 2018 to May 2019, leading to several orders under Section 62 of the GST Act by the Assessing Officer, documented in FORM GST ASMT-13 (Exts.P1 to P1(m)). Subsequent orders in FORM GST DRC-07 (Exts.P2 to P2(m)) were issued on 22.10.2019, 27.11.2019, and 30.11.2019. The petitioner appealed under Section 107 of the GST Act, and the appeals are annexed at Ext.P4 to P4(m). The counsel argued that the orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act 2017 are not appealable and that the final appealable orders are those in FORM GST DRC-07. If the appeals are considered as challenging the orders in FORM GST DRC-07, except for one appeal, others are within the limitation period, and the delay in one appeal is condonable. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeals based on uncondonable delay and non-payment of additional court fees. The Government Pleader argued that under Section 62 of the GST Act, an assessment order is deemed withdrawn only if returns are filed in response to notice in FORM GST ASMT-13, which did not happen in this case. Thus, the appealable order is the assessment order in GST ASMT-13, not the recovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC-07. The court considered these submissions and the provisions of Section 107 of the CGST Act, which allows appeals to the Appellate Authority within three months of the decision or order, with a further one-month condonation period for sufficient cause.

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the appellate order (Ext.P7) passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), which rejected the petitioner’s appeals as barred by limitation and for non-deposit of 1% of the court fees as per KLBF. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that due to inability to file monthly GST returns from April 2018 to May 2019, the Assessing Officer issued several orders under Section 62 of the GST Act for that period. These orders, detailed in FORM GST ASMT-13 dated 15.05.2019 and 14.07.2019 (Exts.P1 to P1(m)), were followed by orders in FORM GST DRC-07 (Exts.P2 to P2(m)) dated 22.10.2019, 27.11.2019, and 30.11.2019. The petitioner appealed under section 107 of the GST Act, with appeal memos annexed at Ext.P4 to P4(m). The counsel argued that the orders under Section 62 of the CGST Act are not appealable, and the final order in FORM GST DRC-07 is the appealable order. If the appeals are considered as challenging the order in FORM GST DRC-07, all but one are within the limitation period, and the one exceeding the limit suffers from a condonable delay. The appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeals on the grounds of uncondonable delay and non-payment of additional court fees of 1% of the disputed amount.

The Government Pleader contended that under Section 62 of the GST Act, an assessment order is only deemed withdrawn if the assessee files the return in response to the notice in FORM GST ASMT-13. As the petitioner did not file such returns, the appealable order is the assessment order in GST ASMT-13, not the recovery proceedings in FORM GST DRC-07. The court considered the submissions and reviewed the materials. Section 107 of the CGST Act allows any aggrieved person to appeal to the designated appellate authority within three months of the order’s communication. The authority can condone a delay of one month if sufficient cause is shown. Section 62 deals with the assessment of non-filers of returns, allowing the proper officer to assess tax liability to the best of their judgment if returns are not furnished, and issue an assessment order within five years from the specified date for annual return filing. If the registered person files a valid return within thirty days of the assessment order service, the order is deemed withdrawn, but liability for interest and late fees continues. This clause outlines the procedure for assessing non-filers by the due dates.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: