IMPORTANT POINT
The importance of availing the remedy of appeal within the prescribed period under the legislative scheme of the RGST Act, 2017.

ORDER :

1. Heard on admission.

2. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an ex-parte assessment order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the third respondent, namely, the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-I, Jaipur I Ward-II, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur. The petitioner has sought declaration that his statutory return in Form GSTR-3B for the month of March, 2023 is valid and the declaration made therein by the petitioner holds primacy over the determination of liability in best judgment assessment. A prayer has also been made to de-attach the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that Section 16(2), 39 read with Sections 46 & 47 of the GST Act permit filing of a monthly return after the due date.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that due to financial constraint the petitioner could not file his return under Section 39 in Form GSTR-3B for the period of March, 2023, due to which a notice under Section 46 of the Rajasthan Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, "RGST Act, 2017"), was issued to him requiring him to file Form GSTR-3B for the period of March, 2023 within 15 days. It is further submitted that financial constraint continued and return could not be filed within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the third respondent proceeded with best judgment assessment under Section 62 of the RGST Act, 2017, it being assessment for non-filers of return, the petitioner, though belatedly, filed his return under Section 39 in Form GSTR3B for the period of March, 2023 on 04.10.2023 on the basis of self assessment of tax. The petitioner carried notion and impression that since he had filed return under Section 39, though belatedly, the best judgment assessment would be withdrawn. Because of such an impression, the petitioner did not take recourse to remedy of appeal and when recovery notice was issued against him, his bank accounts were attached. As the best judgment assessment is without collecting necessary information and without affording any opportunity of hearing, and the petitioner under wrong notion of fact and law could not avail the statutory remedy of appeal, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Though several contentions based on merits of the case, particularly that the determination of tax under best judgment assessment is not in accord with the return filed by the petitioner, we find that the petitioner, right from the beginning, has been a defaulter. Firstly, he did not file his return under Section 39 in Form GSTR-3B for the period of March, 2023, even though he was served with a notice under Section 46 of the RGST Act, 2017 requiring him to file his return in the Form GSTR-3B for March, 2023 within 15 days. The petitioner again remained negligent and did not care to file his return within a period of 15 days as per notice dated 27.04.2023. In such circumstances, the Assessing Authority was left with no option but to proceed to make best judgment assessment, as provided under Section 62 of the RGST Act, 2017.

5. It is not the case of the petitioner that the best judgment assessment was not known to him. Though he had an efficacious statutory remedy of filing an appeal even against the best judgment assessment on grounds available to him under the law, the petitioner again did not avail his alternative remedy of appeal against the best judgment assessment. Not only the entire period of limitation was allowed to expire, but even the extended period within which the appeal could be filed alongwith an application for condonation of delay, also expired and the petitioner filed this petition as late as on 08.02.2024 assailing the assessment order. Thus, the petitioner committed default at every stage. The legislative scheme of the RGST Act, 2017 provided him a remedy of appeal where he could have raised all the grounds, he chose to remain indolent.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy, ri