Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the assessment proceedings dated 01.09.2022 passed by the assessing authority under Section 62 of the APGST Act. The authority completed a best judgment assessment determining a tax liability of ₹2,01,154/- on the ground that the petitioner had failed to file the GST return for the month of June 2022.

The petitioner admitted that the return for June 2022 was not filed within the prescribed time and that a notice under Section 46 of the APGST Act had been issued. Subsequently, the assessment order was passed under Section 62 of the Act.

However, after the assessment order, the petitioner filed the pending GST return on 14.09.2022, which was within one month from the date of the assessment order as contemplated under Section 62(2) of the APGST Act. Accordingly, the petitioner sought setting aside of the assessment order and requested consideration of the subsequently filed return.

Issues Involved

1.      Whether a best judgment assessment passed under Section 62 of the APGST Act should be reconsidered when the taxpayer files the pending return within one month of the assessment order.

2.      Whether the assessing authority is required to consider the return filed under Section 62(2) before enforcing the best judgment assessment.

Petitioner's Arguments

·         The petitioner acknowledged the delay in filing the GST return for June 2022.

·         The petitioner submitted that although the assessment order had already been passed, the pending return was filed on 14.09.2022.

·         Since the return was filed within one month from the assessment order, the petitioner claimed the benefit available under Section 62(2) of the APGST Act.

·         The petitioner requested that the assessment order be set aside and the returns already filed be considered by the assessing authority in accordance with law.

Respondent's Arguments

The Government Pleader, on instructions from the department, submitted that:

·         The petitioner had indeed filed the pending GST return on 14.09.2022.

·         Since the return had been filed within one month from the assessment order, if the petitioner submitted a fresh representation, the assessing authority would consider the returns and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Court Order / Findings

The Andhra Pradesh High Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the assessing authority within two weeks from the receipt of the Court's order.

The Court directed that upon receipt of such representation, the first respondent shall consider the GST return dated 14.09.2022 already filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the applicable law and statutory provisions.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of without costs, and all pending interlocutory applications were closed.

Important Clarification

·         Filing the pending GST return within one month from the date of the best judgment assessment under Section 62(2) provides the taxpayer an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the assessment.

·         The assessing authority is expected to examine such returns and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the APGST Act and Rules.

·         The judgment reinforces that statutory relief available under Section 62(2) should be effectively considered where returns are filed within the prescribed period.

·         Taxpayers should promptly file pending returns even after a best judgment assessment to avail the statutory remedy provided under the GST law.

Sections Involved

·         Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Notice to Return Defaulters)

·         Section 62 of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Assessment of Non-Filers of Returns)

·         Section 62(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1782968859_78compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.