Quashing of Best Judgment Assessment Based on Identity Confusion

1. The Core Issue: Portal-Based Data vs. Actual Identity

The petitioner, a former works contractor, had closed his business in 2016 (pre-GST era) and therefore never registered under GST. However, the tax department initiated Best Judgment Assessment under Section 63, which is specifically designed for unregistered persons.

Department’s Stand: Based on data from the WAMIS (Works and Accounts Management Information System) and the Income Tax portal, the Assessing Officer (AO) found a significant turnover attributed to the name “Srikant Das.” They generated a temporary GSTIN, issued a notice (ASMT-14), and passed an ex parte assessment order after the petitioner failed to respond.
Assessee’s Stand: The petitioner was completely unaware of the proceedings. He argued that the turnover reported in WAMIS actually belonged to another contractor with an identical name who held a valid GST registration.

2. Legal Analysis: Failure of Procedural Safeguards

The High Court scrutinized the “Best Judgment” process and found it to be a case of mechanical application of data without verification.

I. Conceded Mistaken Identity

During the hearing, the Standing Counsel for the State admitted (based on written instructions from the Superintending Engineer) that the transactions recorded in the WAMIS portal were linked to a different registered person.

The Ruling: The assessment was founded on a “foundational error.” If the identity of the taxpayer is wrong, the entire jurisdictional basis for the assessment under Section 63 vanishes.

II. Best Judgment is Not “Pure Guesswork”

The court reiterated that while Section 63 allows for some estimation, it cannot be based on “blind reliance” on portal data without ensuring that the data actually pertains to the person being assessed.

Violation of Natural Justice: Since the petitioner had ceased business before the GST regime, he had no reason to check the GST portal. Serving a notice only on a portal-generated temporary ID was insufficient.

3. Final Ruling: Order Quashed in Toto

The Orissa High Court held that the department’s mechanical approach led to a gross miscarriage of justice.

Verdict: Both the original assessment order and the appellate order (which had confirmed the demand) were quashed and set aside.
Outcome: The writ petition was allowed, and the demand against the petitioner was nullified.

Key Takeaways for Unregistered Persons

Digital Footprints and Identical Names: If you have a common name, ensure your PAN is correctly linked in all government systems (like WAMIS or I-T portal) to prevent turnover from being wrongly attributed to you.
Section 23 Exemption: If your business is closed or you deal exclusively in exempt goods (like certain agricultural produce), you are not “liable to register” regardless of turnover.
Challenge Best Judgment Quickly: If you discover a “temporary GSTIN” notice against you, you must immediately challenge the jurisdiction of the officer by proving that you were never liable to register in the first place.

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Srikant Das

Joint Commissioner of State Tax^*

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 State CT & GST) for the Opposite Parties.

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.