Rajasthan High Court
M/S. Radox Engineering Private Limited vs State Of Rajasthan Finance Department ... on 21 December, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2023:RJ-JP:41086-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20483/2023
M/s. Radox Engineering Private Limited, Office At 3/93, Malviya
Nagar, Jaipur, 302017 Through Its Authorized Signatory Saurabh
Shukla, S/o Gopal Krishan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 3/98,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302017
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Finance Department (Tax Division),
Through Its Principal Secretary, 1St Floor Main Building
Gate No 2 Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan-
302005
2. The Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes
Department, Kar, Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani
Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-C, Zone Jaipur-
Ii, Commercial Tax Department, Zonal Kar Bhawan,
Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Union Of India Represented, Through Union Secretary,
Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance Of, North
Block New Delhi- 110001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
21/12/2023
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
of the order dated 13/6/2023 (Annex.5), whereby, the petitioner
has been assessed under Section 62 of the Central Goods &
Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act, 2017').
[2023:RJ-JP:41086-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-20483/2023]
2. It is inter alia submitted that for the month of March, 2023
the petitioner filed its GSTR-1 within the prescribed time period
indicating his total sales at Rs. 2,16,01,166/- towards the outward
supplies and IGST on the outward supplies at Rs.35,17,065/-. The
petitioner was required to file GSTR - 3B for the month of March,
2023 by 20/4/2023, however, due to financial crisis and non-
availability of funds, the same was not filed within the prescribed
time limit.
3. Notice under Section 46 of the Act, 2017 was issued to the
petitioner on 27/4/2023 requiring him to file return within the
period of 15 days, however, neither response to the said notice
nor return was filed. The respondents passed the best judgment
assessment under Section 62 of the Act, 2017 along with
attachment creating liability of Rs. 51,98,302/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement
submissions that action of the respondents in passing the
impugned best judgment assessment (Annex.5) is wholly
unjustified inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded any
opportunity of hearing as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the
Act, 2017 and that a frivolous & hyped demand has been created
without following the guidelines prescribed by the Department
(Annex.10). Based on the submissions, it was prayed that the
demand raised deserves to be set aside.
5. Reliance was placed on Golden Mesh Industries vs. Assistant
Commissioner of State Tax : Writ Petition No. 7789/2021 decided
on 31/3/2021 by Telangana High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed
the submissions. It was submitted that the order impugned is
[2023:RJ-JP:41086-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-20483/2023]
open to appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 and no case is
made out for bypassing the alternative remedy. It was submitted
that admittedly the procedure prescribed under Section 62 of the
Act, 2017 which deals with assessment of non-filer of returns has
been followed, wherein, the petitioner was issued notice under
Section 46 of the Act, 2017 and despite the same, the petitioner
chose neither to respond nor file return and as such passing of the
order impugned was the only consequence. It was prayed that the
petition be dismissed.
7. Reliance was placed on Kachwala Gems, Jaipur vs. Joint
Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur : AIR 2007 SC 487.
8. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on
record.
9. The petitioner has chosen to question the validity of
assessment made under Section 62 of the Act, 2017, which is in
the nature of best judgment assessment. It is not denied that the
petitioner had failed to file the requisite return, which led to
issuance of notice under Section 46 of the Act, 2017 and on failure
to respond to the said notice/file return, assessment impugned
(Annex.5) came to be passed.
10. Merely because the said assessment in the estimation of
petitioner is excessive, though according to petitioner's own
submission, in terms of GSTR-1 he was liable to pay the GST of
Rs.35,17,065/- i.e. much higher than the average monthly tax of
Rs.7,78,808/- and Rs.3,49,189/- for the month of March, 2022
and the same has been assessed based on best judgment at a
[2023:RJ-JP:41086-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-20483/2023]
higher amount by itself cannot be a reason for this Court to
interfere.
11. Submissions made pertaining to violation of provisions of
Section 75(4) of the Act, 2017 also cannot be countenanced in the
circumstances of the case inasmuch as the procedure as
prescribed under Section 62 of the Act, 2017 has been
meticulously followed by the respondents, which pertain to best
judgment assessment and despite notice issued under Section 46
of the Act, 2017, the petitioner chose not to appear.
12. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in the
order impugned in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made
out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
13. However, in case the petitioner files statutory appeal, any of
the observations made hereinbefore would not come in the way of
the petitioner.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
Baweja/5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
