Orissa High Court Quashes Ex Parte Assessment Order Passed Against Unregistered Person Due to Mistaken Identity and Erroneous Data

1. The Core Dispute: Assessment of the Wrong Individual

The petitioner, a works contractor who had ceased business operations in 2016 (pre-GST era), never obtained GST registration. However, the Additional CT & GST Officer generated a temporary GSTIN and initiated a best-judgment assessment under Section 63.

The Revenue’s Basis: The department relied on data from the Works and Accounts Management Information System (WAMIS) and the Income Tax Portal, which showed significant turnover attributed to the name “Srikant Das.”
The Error: An ex parte assessment order was passed, raising a substantial tax demand. The petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings until recovery was initiated. It was later revealed that the turnover actually belonged to another registered contractor with the exact same name.

2. Legal Analysis: Jurisdictional Error and Foundational Flaw

The Court examined whether a “Best Judgment” assessment can be sustained when the very identity of the taxable person is in question.

I. Conceded Position of Mistaken Identity

During the hearing, the Standing Counsel for the State conceded (based on written instructions and bank verification) that the transactions reflected in WAMIS pertained to a different registered person with an identical name. This registered person held a valid GSTIN and had executed the works in question.

II. Best Judgment is Not “Pure Guesswork”

While Section 63 empowers officers to estimate tax liability for unregistered persons, the Court held that:

Identity Verification: The power cannot be used mechanically. The officer must first ensure that the “taxable person” being assessed is indeed the person responsible for the turnover.
Blind Reliance: Relying blindly on portal data (like WAMIS) without cross-verifying GSTINs or PANs leads to a “worst judgment” assessment.

3. Final Ruling: Orders Quashed in Toto

The High Court held that since the assessment lacked a factual foundation, it was void from the start.

Verdict: The ex parte assessment order (dated January 22, 2022) and the confirming appellate order (dated December 14, 2023) were quashed and set aside.
Outcome: The entire demand was nullified as it was raised against the wrong person.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Identity Proof: If you are an unregistered person receiving a “Best Judgment” notice, provide your PAN and bank statements immediately to prove the absence of turnover.
Challenge “Mistaken Identity”: In the digital age, name-based mismatches are common. Courts will grant relief if you can prove the “portal data” belongs to a different entity (check the PAN/GSTIN linked to the TDS on WAMIS).
Remedy for Unregistered Persons: Even if you missed the appeal deadline, a Writ Petition is maintainable if the assessment violates the principles of natural justice or is based on a fundamental jurisdictional error like mistaken identity.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Srikant Das

Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal)

Harish Tandon, CJ.
and MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

W.P. (C) No. 35278 of 2025

JANUARY 22, 2026

Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Petitioner, Works Contractor, having ceased to have business since 2016, did not choose to be registered after introduction of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (Collectively, “GST Act”) and he has preferred the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed under Section 63 of the GST Act by the Additional CT & GST Officer, Ganjam-II Circle, Ganjam vide Annexure-7 and the appellate order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Territorial Range, Ganjam, Berhampur vide Annexure-3.

2. It is submitted by Mr. Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, learned Advocate that by generating a temporary GSTIN 212100001479TMP, the Additional CT and GST Officer, Ganjam-II Circle, Ganjam initiated a proceeding under Section 63 of the GST Act by issue of notice in Form GST ASMT-14. Since the petitioner was unaware of the fact of such proceeding being initiated could not participate in the proceeding which led to passing of an ex parte order of assessment dated 12.11.2021 under the said provision treating the petitioner as unregistered. It is further submitted that the appeal preferred under Section 107 of the GST Act against the said ex parte order of assessment stood dismissed by order dated 16.02.2024; thereby, the demand raised in the assessment got confirmed.

2.1. It is contended by Mr. Harichandan, learned Advocate that based on the data available on Works and Accounts Management Information System (for short, „WAMIS’), the Assessing Authority as well as the appellate authority proceeded to finalise the proceeding under Section 63 of the GST Act. It is urged that had the authorities given an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner would have explained that due to wrong reporting and feeding of data in the portal in WAMIS and Income Tax Portal, the Executive Engineer R&B) Ganjam Division-I, Berhampur, an arbitrary demand has been raised by passing an order of assessment under Section 63 of the GST Act. It is impressed upon that another works contractor with the same name being available as registered under GST Act, confusion appears to have crept in.

2.2. It is argued that the authorities could have called for appropriate information from the concerned authority instead of relying blindly on the data uploaded in the WAMIS and Income Tax Portal.

3. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for CT and GST Organization having availed opportunities to obtain instruction (s) on earlier occasion (s), furnished the written instructions submitted by the Joint Commissioner of CT & GST, CT & GST Circle, Ganjam-II, Berhampur wherein the copy of letter dated 13.01.2026 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Ganjam R & B Division-1, Berhampur is enclosed. It is asserted by the said Superintending Engineer that the information supplied in the letter dated 29.10.2025 issued by his Office under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was correct. It is clarified by Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel with reference to letter dated 13.01.2026 that the return in the GST Act filed by the Office of Superintending Engineer was with respect to transaction of a person who happens to be registered under the GST Act assigned with GSTIN 21CFDPD1998GIZO with the identical name as that of the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel conceded that the present assessment order being passed against a person who remained unregistered under the GST Act under an impression that though he had turnover as uploaded in the WAMIS against Srikant Das. He submitted that confusion arose as the names of both the registered and unregistered persons are identical.

4. In view of such conceded position and taking note of written instruction(s) of Joint Commissioner of CT & GST, CT & GST Circle, Ganjam-II as furnished by learned Standing Counsel, the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 passed under Section 63 of the GST Act by the Additional CT & GST Officer, Ganjam-II Circle, Ganjam and the appellate order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Territorial Range, Ganjam, Berhampur cannot be sustained.

5. Hence, the aforesaid orders vide Annexures-2 and 3 are hereby quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.