Nico Tiles VS State Tax Officer

The petitioner challenges monthly assessment orders issued under section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These orders, detailed in Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) to Ext.P3(r), were issued because the petitioner failed to furnish returns despite notice under section 46 of the Act, leading to assessments for the periods from November 2017 to May 2019. The petitioner argues that these assessment orders are illegal and warrant court intervention, as they requested cancellation of registration effective 31.12.2017, and this request was ignored when issuing the orders.

The petitioner challenges a series of monthly assessment orders issued under section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, alleging that these assessments, covering November 2017 to May 2019, were conducted because the petitioner failed to submit returns despite receiving notice under section 46 of the Act. The petitioner argues these orders are illegal because they had requested the cancellation of their registration effective from December 31, 2017, a request that was allegedly ignored during the assessment process. The petitioner also asserts that the proper officer had already canceled their registration effective from the same date, making the assessments for the period in question unauthorized. The court heard arguments from both the petitioner’s counsel, Smt. M.K. Hajara, and the respondents’ Senior Government Pleader, Dr. Thushara James. It was noted that the cancellation order specified an effective cancellation date of December 31, 2017, but the application for this cancellation was submitted only after the assessment orders were issued.

The petitioner challenges a series of monthly assessment orders under section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These orders, produced as Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) to Ext.P3(r), state that the petitioner failed to furnish returns despite notice under section 46, leading to assessments for the respective periods. The tax periods involved are from November 2017 to May 2019. The petitioner argues that the assessment orders are illegal because they requested cancellation of registration effective from 31.12.2017, which was ignored. The Proper Officer had canceled the registration by Ext.P6 effective from 31.12.2017, making the assessment orders for November 2017 to May 2019 without authority. The petitioner has already appealed to the Appellate Authority under section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, as shown by Ext.P4, challenging the assessment orders. However, the application for cancellation was submitted only after the assessment orders were issued, and the petitioner did not deposit the mandatory pre-deposit required for the appeal, arguing that the order of cancellation of registration should have set aside the entire assessment orders.

The petitioner challenges a series of monthly assessment orders issued under section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act). These orders, spanning from November 2017 to May 2019, were issued because the petitioner failed to furnish returns despite notice under section 46 of the Act. The petitioner contends that these assessment orders are illegal since a request for cancellation of registration was made effective from December 31, 2017. This cancellation was ignored in the assessment orders. The proper officer had indeed cancelled the registration effective from the specified date, making the assessments for the period without authority. The petitioner argues that since the order of cancellation of registration, issued on March 19, 2021, nullified the assessment orders, the mandatory pre-deposit required for appeal would cause undue prejudice. The petitioner had already appealed to the Appellate Authority under section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act but did not make the required pre-deposit, arguing it would be prejudicial, especially since the petitioner would lose the court fee on the appeal. The appeal was filed on March 11, 2020, and the petitioner cannot avoid mandatory pre-deposits by relying on subsequent events, as it would undermine the statute’s provisions.

The petitioner contests a series of monthly assessment orders issued under section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the periods from November 2017 to May 2019, as shown in Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) to Ext.P3(r). These assessments were made because the petitioner failed to furnish returns despite receiving notices under section 46 of the Act. The petitioner argues that these orders are illegal, as they had requested cancellation of their registration effective from December 31, 2017, which the Proper Officer had granted in Ext.P6. However, this request for cancellation was submitted after the assessment orders were issued. The petitioner has also appealed these orders under section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, evidenced by Ext.P4. This appeal, filed on March 11, 2020, mandates a pre-deposit of 10%, which the petitioner has not paid, arguing that the cancellation of registration should nullify the assessments and that paying the pre-deposit would be prejudicial. The court notes that once the statutory appeal process is initiated, the petitioner cannot avoid mandatory pre-deposits by relying on subsequent events. The liability to make the pre-deposit is determined at the time of filing the appeal and cannot be avoided by later developments. The court emphasizes that the petitioner must pursue the appeal as required by law, given that Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary remedy.

The petitioner challenges monthly assessment orders under section 62 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as shown in Ext.P3 and Ext.P3(a) to Ext.P3(r), stating that the assessments were done due to the petitioner’s failure to submit returns despite notice under section 46. These orders cover the period from November 2017 to May 2019. The petitioner claims these assessments are illegal since they requested the cancellation of registration effective from 31.12.2017, which was granted in Ext.P6. Thus, assessments for periods after cancellation are allegedly unauthorized. Counsel for both parties were heard. The cancellation was effective from 31.12.2017, but the cancellation application came after the assessments were issued. The petitioner had already appealed under section 107, which requires a pre-deposit of 10%. The petitioner argued that this pre-deposit, following the registration cancellation, would cause prejudice. The appeal was filed on 11.03.2020, but the pre-deposit requirement remains due to the date of the appeal. Subsequent events cannot negate this requirement. The Court determined that the petitioner should continue with the statutory appeal process and not use Article 226 to bypass the pre-deposit mandate. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: