K.U. Niyas vs. Assistant Commissioner: GST Assessment Order Challenges Explained

Overview of K.U. Niyas vs. Assistant Commissioner Case

In the case of K.U. Niyas vs. Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner contested demand-cum-recovery notices issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act. He argued that the assessment orders for the periods April 2018 and May 2018 to May 2019 had not been properly served. The petitioner claimed he only became aware of these orders upon receiving the demand notices, prompting him to file his returns within 30 days to seek withdrawal of the assessment orders as outlined in Section 62 of the GST Act.

Conversely, the respondents asserted that the assessment orders were duly uploaded on the GST portal on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019, thereby satisfying the service requirements under Section 169 of the GST Act, which recognizes electronic communication as legitimate service. As the petitioner did not submit his returns within 30 days of the upload date, he was ineligible for the withdrawal benefit under Section 62.

The Kerala High Court ultimately ruled that the petitioner’s delay in filing the returns invalidated his claim for benefit under Section 62 of the GST Act. The court confirmed that the assessment orders had been duly served via the GST portal and email. Thus, the petition against the assessment orders and demand notices was dismissed. However, acknowledging the petitioner’s request for time to pursue an appeal, the court granted a six-week stay on the recovery proceedings, allowing him to seek recourse with the appellate authority.

Full Text of the Judgment/Order of Kerala High Court

The petitioner has approached this Court to challenge the Ext.P2 series of demand-cum-recovery notices issued against him under the GST Act. It is evident that these notices were based on assessment orders issued on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019 concerning the assessment periods of April 2018 and May 2018 to May 2019. The petitioner contended that he did not receive these assessment orders; however, upon receipt of the demand notices, he promptly filed his returns within thirty days to obtain the benefit of withdrawal of the orders under Section 62 of the GST Act.

According to the respondents, the assessment orders were uploaded on the department's web portal on the same dates – 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019. Section 62 of the GST Act provides the option to the assessee to file returns within 30 days of receiving assessment orders passed on a best judgment basis for the purpose of obtaining withdrawal of these orders. In this case, while the orders were uploaded on the portal on 25.11.2019 and 27.11.2019, the petitioner failed to file returns for the corresponding periods within the stipulated 30 days, instead filing them only after receiving the demand notices.

Upon reviewing the facts and arguments presented, it is clear that under Section 169(c) and (d) of the GST Act, any communication via the email address provided by the assessee during registration, as well as notifications made available through the common portal, is considered effective communication under the law. Therefore, it is undeniable that the assessment orders were made known to the petitioner on the aforementioned dates. Since the returns related to these assessment periods were filed more than 30 days after the service of orders through the department portal, the petitioner could not claim to withdraw the assessment orders as prescribed under Section 62 of the GST Act. Consequently, the Writ Petition contesting the assessment orders and demand notices is dismissed.

Finally, recognizing the petitioner's counsel's assertion that additional time is needed to appeal against the assessment orders, the Court has ordered a six-week stay on the recovery proceedings related to the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders and demand notices challenged in this Writ Petition, to allow the petitioner to approach the appellate authority with statutory appeals.