Facts of the Case

The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents for not withdrawing the impugned orders in Form ASMT-13 dated 17.11.2021 relating to the months of June to September 2021 under the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The petitioner also sought a consequential direction to the first respondent to update the demands after considering the GST returns stated to have been filed for the months of June to September 2021.

According to the petitioner, the assessment order dated 17.11.2021 had been passed on the ground that returns for June to September 2021 had not been submitted pursuant to the show-cause notice. The assessment order was thereafter uploaded on the web portal.

The petitioner contended that, in response to the assessment order, GSTR-3B returns were filed on 17.12.2021, i.e., within 30 days as prescribed under Section 62(2) of the APGST Act. However, despite such filing, the impugned assessment order dated 17.11.2021 and the consequential demand continued to remain on the GST portal.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were:

  1. Whether the GST returns claimed to have been filed by the petitioner within 30 days under Section 62(2) of the APGST Act were required to be verified and considered by the tax authority.
  2. Whether the assessment order dated 17.11.2021 and consequential demand could continue on the GST portal without verification of the returns claimed to have been filed by the petitioner.
  3. Whether the tax authority was required to consider the returns for June, July, August and September 2021 and pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.
  4. Whether coercive action could be initiated pursuant to the impugned assessment order while verification and fresh assessment remained pending.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that the impugned assessment order dated 17.11.2021 was passed on the premise that returns for June to September 2021 had not been filed.

It was specifically contended that the petitioner filed GSTR-3B returns on 17.12.2021, within the 30-day period contemplated under Section 62(2) of the APGST Act.

The petitioner further submitted that returns for all four months, namely June, July, August and September 2021, had been uploaded on 17.12.2021.

Accordingly, the petitioner argued that the first respondent should be directed to consider the returns for all four months and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

The petitioner’s grievance was that, despite the alleged timely filing of the returns, the assessment order and consequential demand had not been deleted or appropriately updated on the GST portal.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Government Pleader admitted that the petitioner had submitted returns but contended that the returns available with the department pertained only to July 2021.

It was submitted that the return for July 2021 was under scrutiny and, for that reason, the impugned assessment and consequential demand had not been removed from the web portal for the time being.

The respondent side further submitted that, after final scrutiny, appropriate action would be taken in accordance with law.

During the proceedings, the learned Government Pleader also stated that the portal would once again be verified and, if the returns claimed by the petitioner for the remaining months were found, those returns would be considered together with the return for July 2021 and necessary orders would be passed in accordance with law.

Court’s Findings and Order

The High Court observed that the central dispute concerned whether the petitioner had uploaded returns for all four months from June to September 2021.

While the petitioner maintained that returns for all four months had been uploaded, the respondent authorities contended that, except for July 2021, returns for the remaining months had not been received by the first respondent.

The Court recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader that the web portal would again be verified and that, if the returns claimed to have been submitted for the remaining months were found, they would be considered along with the return for July 2021.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following directions and observations:

  1. The first respondent shall verify the web portal.
  2. If the returns claimed to have been submitted by the petitioner for June, August and September 2021 are found, in addition to the return for July 2021, the authority shall consider all such returns together.
  3. After scrutiny of the returns, the authority shall pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.
  4. The fresh assessment order shall be communicated to the petitioner expeditiously.
  5. If the petitioner remains aggrieved by the fresh assessment order, the petitioner may pursue the legal remedies available under law.
  6. Until the first respondent considers the returns and passes a fresh assessment order, no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned assessment order dated 17.11.2021.
  7. No order as to costs was made.
  8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were ordered to stand closed.

Important Clarification

The High Court did not conclusively determine that returns for all four months had actually been filed. Instead, the Court recognised the factual dispute between the parties and directed the first respondent to verify the GST web portal.

Therefore, the operative protection and relief were structured around portal verification. If the returns for June, August and September 2021 were found, they were required to be considered together with the July 2021 return, followed by scrutiny and a fresh assessment order in accordance with law.

A particularly significant aspect of the order is that the Court restrained the authorities from initiating coercive action pursuant to the assessment order dated 17.11.2021 until the returns were considered and a fresh assessment order was passed.

The order also expressly preserved the petitioner’s right to pursue the legal remedies available if aggrieved by the fresh assessment order.

Section Involved

Section 62(2) of the APGST Act, 2017

The controversy specifically involved Section 62(2) of the APGST Act, as the petitioner claimed to have filed GSTR-3B returns on 17.12.2021 within 30 days of the assessment order dated 17.11.2021.

The case highlights the practical significance of filing returns within the statutory period contemplated under Section 62(2), verification of such filing on the GST portal, consideration of the filed returns by the proper officer, and passing of an appropriate fresh assessment order in accordance with law.

Link to download the order -

https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783318977_1105compressed.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.