Softouch Health Care Private Ltd VS State Tax Officer

The petitioner, a private limited company providing ayurvedic and spa services, is challenging assessment orders issued under the GST Act from April 2018 to October 2019. These orders were made on a best judgment basis under Section 62 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contends that within the 30-day period allowed by law, they filed separate returns for each month and applied for rectification of errors found in the assessment orders. They argue that subsequent filing of returns within the statutory period under Section 62 necessitated the withdrawal of the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) as provided by the section.

The petitioner, a private limited company providing ayurvedic and spa services, challenges GST assessment orders issued between April 2018 and October 2019 under Section 62 of the CGST Act. Alleging errors, the petitioner filed returns and rectification applications within the statutory 30-day window from receiving the assessment orders. Claiming compliance under Section 62, the petitioner contends that subsequent returns necessitated withdrawal of the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series). The 1st respondent, in response to court directives, submitted a statement detailing assessment order dates and petitioner’s return filing dates.

The petitioner, a private limited company offering ayurvedic and spa services, is contesting assessment orders issued under the GST Act for the period from April 2018 to October 2019, based on best judgment under Section 62. They argue that they timely filed returns and sought rectification of errors in these orders within the statutory 30-day period. The respondent, represented by the government, contends that assessment orders communicated via the common portal are valid under Section 169, asserting that late-filed returns negate the petitioner’s claim under Section 62. The court has heard arguments from both parties.

The petitioner, a private limited company providing ayurvedic and spa services, is subject to GST assessments. They contested assessment orders issued from April 2018 to October 2019, made on a best judgment basis under Section 62 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that they filed returns and applied for rectification within the statutory 30-day period after receiving these orders. The respondents provided details of assessment order dates and return filing dates. The government argued that communication via the common portal suffices under Section 169 of the CGST Act for order delivery. Despite arguments, the court found the petitioner’s returns were filed beyond the one-month limit specified in Section 62, thus denying relief to set aside the assessment orders. The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue appeal through statutory channels.

The petitioner, a private limited company offering ayurvedic and spa services, is subject to GST assessments. They contested assessment orders issued from April 2018 to October 2019, conducted under best judgment criteria per Section 62 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that they timely filed returns and sought rectifications, rendering the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) obsolete as per Section 62. The respondents countered that communication via the common portal sufficed under Section 169, thus denying the petitioner’s claim. After reviewing arguments, the court upheld the respondents’ position, denying relief under Section 62 but permitting appeal to the appellate authority. Recovery of dues was postponed for a month to facilitate this appeal process.

Download PDF;

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: