GST Assessment Order Quashed for Erroneously Treating Registered Dealer as Unregistered
Issue: Whether a GST assessment order made under Section 63 (applicable to unregistered persons) is valid when the assessee is a registered dealer and has paid the due taxes.
Facts:
- The assessee, a registered GST dealer, challenged an assessment order passed under Section 63, which is meant for unregistered persons.
- The assessee argued that they had duly paid the tax and should not be assessed under the provision for unregistered dealers.
- The revenue admitted that the assessee was indeed a registered dealer and that the tax paid was reflected in their new register.
- The assessment order was passed due to an oversight in noticing the tax payment.
Decision:
- The court quashed the impugned assessment order.
- The court recognized that the assessee was a registered dealer and had paid the tax, making the assessment under Section 63 erroneous.
Key Takeaways:
- This case highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping and verification by tax authorities before initiating assessment proceedings.
- Assessing a registered dealer under the provisions meant for unregistered persons is an error that can invalidate the assessment order.
- This decision underscores the need for due diligence by tax authorities to ensure that assessments are made under the correct provisions of the law.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Laxmikanta Panigrahi
v.
Commissioner, CT and GST
Arindam Sinha, Actg. CJ.
and M.S. Sahoo, J.
and M.S. Sahoo, J.
W.P.(C) No. 28377 of 2024
JANUARY 20, 2025
Mrs. Kanakabala Roy Choudhury, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sunil Misra, Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Mrs. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is assessment order dated 27th October, 2022 made under section 63 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 pertaining to tax period April, 2020-21. She submits, the order is bad as it is culmination of a proceeding against her client, being a registered dealer. Furthermore, her client duly paid the tax.
2. Mr. Misra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and hands up his instruction dated 30th December, 2024. He submits, petitioner is a registered dealer and the tax paid was reflected in the new register. There was omission to notice it.
3. In view of aforesaid, impugned order is set aside and quashed.
4. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.