Applying best judgment merely based on 6 months taxable value and that too in a real estate sector cannot sustain and cannot be said as ‘best Judgment’ at all. It is nothing but a complete mockery of Section 62 of CGST Act, 2017 by not justifying the yardsticks set by Section 62 and seeking recovery of revenue as the only intention which is against principles of natural justice. This court find it proper to remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority and pass the speaking order accordingly by following the principle of natural justice.
Section 62 of the CGST Act — Assessment Orders — The appellant engaged in building and construction of residential complex and providing maintenance services to the flat buyers after completion of the project. The adjudicating authority has issued a SCN on 19-11-2019 stating the reason being “Non-filing of GST returns” (GSTR-3B) for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019 and April, 2019 to September, 2019. Further, the adjudicating authority has passed the best judgment Assessment Order dated 30-1-2020 in Form GST ASMT-13 under Section 62 of the Act for non-filing of GSTR-1 statement and GSTR-3B return for the months of January, 2019 to December, 2019. Being aggrieved with the best judgment Assessment Order, the appellant has filed the appeal on 19-6-2020 on the ground that the impugned best judgment order has been issued in violation of the provisions of Section 62 and principles of natural justice. This order has been passed without issuance of mandatory Notice under Section 46. The authority observed that the adjudicating authority while passing Assessment Order has taken the period of dispute from January, 2019 to December, 2019 whereas, in SCN under Section 46, the period of dispute has been taken from October, 2018 to March, 2019 and April, 2019 to September, 2019. Thus, the SCN does not cover the period of three months from October, 2019, November, 2019 and December, 2019.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority with direction to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and Rules, 2017.
Applying best judgment merely based on 6 months taxable value and that too in a real estate sector cannot sustain and cannot be said as ‘best Judgment’ at all. It is nothing but a complete mockery of Section 62 of CGST Act, 2017 by not justifying the yardsticks set by Section 62 and seeking recovery of revenue as the only intention which is against principles of natural justice. This court find it proper to remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority and pass the speaking order accordingly by following the principle of natural justice.
Section 62 of the CGST Act — Assessment Orders — The appellant engaged in building and construction of residential complex and providing maintenance services to the flat buyers after completion of the project. The adjudicating authority has issued a SCN on 19-11-2019 stating the reason being “Non-filing of GST returns” (GSTR-3B) for the period October, 2018 to March, 2019 and April, 2019 to September, 2019. Further, the adjudicating authority has passed the best judgment Assessment Order dated 30-1-2020 in Form GST ASMT-13 under Section 62 of the Act for non-filing of GSTR-1 statement and GSTR-3B return for the months of January, 2019 to December, 2019. Being aggrieved with the best judgment Assessment Order, the appellant has filed the appeal on 19-6-2020 on the ground that the impugned best judgment order has been issued in violation of the provisions of Section 62 and principles of natural justice. This order has been passed without issuance of mandatory Notice under Section 46. The authority observed that the adjudicating authority while passing Assessment Order has taken the period of dispute from January, 2019 to December, 2019 whereas, in SCN under Section 46, the period of dispute has been taken from October, 2018 to March, 2019 and April, 2019 to September, 2019. Thus, the SCN does not cover the period of three months from October, 2019, November, 2019 and December, 2019.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority remanded back the matter to the adjudicating authority with direction to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act and Rules, 2017.