Softouch Health Care Private Ltd VS State Tax Officer

This Review Petition has been presented before the court to address a situation where the petitioner was wronged by the dismissal of his writ petition and subsequent Review Petition. The petitioner had filed W.P.(C).No.15297/2020 challenging demand-cum-recovery notices issued under the GST Act, following a best judgment assessment conducted under Section 62 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that since he had not received a copy of the assessment orders immediately after they were issued and only became aware of them when the demand notices were served, the returns he filed within 30 days of receiving the demand notices should be considered as filed within the permitted time frame for returns under Section 62 of the GST Act, and appropriate actions should follow.

This Review Petition has been presented to the court to address an injustice inflicted upon the petitioner due to the dismissal of both his initial writ petition and his subsequent Review Petition. The writ petition, designated as W.P.(C).No.15297/2020, was filed by the petitioner challenging demand-cum-recovery notices issued under the GST Act following a best judgment assessment conducted as per Section 62 of the Act. In his writ petition, the petitioner argued that since he had not received a copy of the assessment orders immediately after they were issued, learning of them only when served with the demand notices, the returns he filed within 30 days from receiving these notices should be considered timely under Section 62 of the GST Act, thereby necessitating the withdrawal of the assessment orders. This argument was dismissed by the court based on the counter affidavit from the respondent State Government, which asserted that the assessment orders had been communicated to the petitioner through the common web portal as required by Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act. Given no evidence to contradict this claim, the court accepted the respondent’s position.

This Review Petition has been presented before the court today at my request to address a grievance of the petitioner resulting from the dismissal of his writ petition and, subsequently, his Review Petition. The original writ petition, numbered W.P.(C).No.15297/2020, was filed by the petitioner challenging the demand-cum-recovery notices issued to him under the GST Act following a best judgment assessment completed according to Section 62 of the GST Act. In his petition, the petitioner argued that he had not received a copy of the assessment orders immediately after their issuance and only learned of them later when the demand notices were served. Therefore, he contended that the returns he filed within 30 days of receiving the demand notices should be considered timely for the purposes of Section 62, and the assessment orders should be withdrawn. However, this argument was rejected by the court based on the respondent State Government’s counter affidavit, which asserted that the assessment orders had been communicated to the petitioner by uploading them on the common web portal as permitted by Section 169 (1)(d) of the GST Act. Given the lack of evidence to dispute this assertion, the court accepted the respondent’s position and found against the petitioner regarding the timing of the return filings. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed, though the petitioner retained the right to pursue an appellate remedy concerning the assessment orders. The subsequent Review Petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the court, deemed to be without merit.

This Review Petition has been presented to the court to address an issue where the petitioner claims a wrong was committed against him following the dismissal of his writ petition and later his Review Petition. The original writ petition, W.P.(C).No.15297/2020, was filed challenging demand-cum-recovery notices issued under the GST Act after a best judgment assessment was completed under Section 62 of the Act. The petitioner argued that because he had not received the assessment orders immediately and only learned of them later when the demand notices were served, the returns he filed within 30 days from receiving these demand notices should be considered timely under Section 62, leading to the withdrawal of the assessment orders. This argument was rejected by the court based on the respondent State Government’s counter affidavit, which stated that the assessment orders had been communicated through a common web portal as required by Section 169 (1)(d) of the GST Act. The court accepted this and ruled against the petitioner, noting that the petitioner still had the option to pursue an appellate remedy against the assessment orders. The review petition filed later was also dismissed as lacking merit. During the hearing of another writ petition involving similar issues, the court engaged with GST department officials familiar with the technical aspects of uploading orders, which further informed the case.

This Review Petition has been presented before the court today at my request to address a wrong done to the petitioner due to the dismissal of his writ petition and later, his Review Petition. The petitioner had initially filed W.P.(C).No.15297/2020 challenging demand-cum-recovery notices issued under the GST Act, following a best judgment assessment completed under Section 62 of the GST Act. The petitioner argued that he had not been immediately served with a copy of the assessment orders and only became aware of them when the demand notices were served, asserting that the returns filed within 30 days of receiving the demand notices should be considered timely, leading to the withdrawal of the assessment orders. However, this argument was rejected by the court based on the respondent State Government’s counter affidavit, which stated that the assessment orders had been communicated to the petitioner via the common web portal as permitted under Section 169 (1) (d) of the GST Act. The court accepted this information, found against the petitioner on the timeliness of the returns, and dismissed the writ petition while preserving the petitioner’s right to pursue an appellate remedy against the assessment orders. The petitioner’s subsequent review petition was also dismissed as lacking merit. During the hearing of a different writ petition, it was discovered through interactions with GST department officials that assessment orders were not being uploaded simultaneously on the common web portal as previously asserted. The previous statements about uploading on the back-end web portal maintained by the State Government were misleading. This revelation indicates that the factual basis of the earlier decision in WP 15297/2020 was incorrect and requires correction to ensure justice for the petitioner. A litigant should not be penalized due to an error made by the court, especially when the court acknowledges the mistake. Consequently, I am recalling my order dated 21.10.2020 in R.P. No.747/2020 and allowing the review petition.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: