An assessment order passed under S.62 of the CGST/KSGST Act, 2017, is null and void if mandatory statutory notice is not served upon the assessee in accordance with S.169, and mere reference to such a notice in the order does not satisfy the legal requirement.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was a registered taxable person under the provisions of the CGST/KSGST Act, 2017. The petitioner was was originally registered under the provisions of the KVAT Act and migrated to the CGST/KSGST Act, upon its implementation since 01.07.2017.

2. During the month of September, 2017 the petitioner stopped the business. According to the petitioner, even though the petitioner wanted to cancel the registration on such stoppage, he could not do so, in view of the fact that, as per the proviso to Rule 20 of the CGST Rules, as it then existed, there was a prohibition on cancelling the registration, for a period of one year from the date of obtaining the registration.

3. During the month of November, 2017 the petitioner leased out the said premises to another person as evidenced by Ext.P5. The said person have taken registration under the provisions of the CGST Act in the same premises and was being regularly furnishing the returns and paying the tax for the business that is carried out in the said building. The grievances of the petitioner in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 series of orders of assessment under Section 62 of the CGST Act, where, the petitioner was subjected to best judge assessment, as the petitioner failed to submit the returns despite of issuance of notices. The challenge against Ext.P2 series is on the ground that the statutory notice as contemplated under Section 62 was not issued to the petitioner, thereby, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to furnish the returns within 15 days from the receipt of such notice.

4. To substantiate the contention that the petitioner was not served with the statutory notices before issuance of Ext.P2 series of assessment orders, the petitioner is relying on Ext.P4 screen shot of the dash board of the petitioner maintained by the Department of GST. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P4, there is no reference of any notice and it contains only the details of the summary order issued. It is therefore, contended that, an interference is required in Ext.P2 series orders of assessment.

5. A counter affidavit has been submitted on behalf of the respondents opposing the averments of the petitioners and also opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner. It was contended that, even though there was a prohibition for cancelling the registration at the relevant time, the petitioner ought to have filed the returns. It was further contended that the prohibition was only for a period of one year and, therefore, after the expiry of the said period, the petitioner ought to have taken steps either to cancel the registration or to file the returns. It was pointed out that, in this case, Ext.P2 series orders of assessments were passed pertaining to the months of February, 2018 to February 2019, which were after the expiry of the one year period from the date of registration. It is also pointed out that the petitioner’s registration is already cancelled suo motu for non-filing of the return as well.

6. I have heard Sri.Hrithwik D.Namboothiri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Arun Ajay Shankar, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that, no notice as contemplated under Section 62 of the Act, 2017 was issued, before passing Ext.P2 series assessment orders under Section 62. Of course, it is true that in the respective orders of assessment, there are reference of the notices issued. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Ext.P4, the screenshot of the dashboard of the petitioner, there is no indication as to the issuance of the said notices to the petitioner. While filing the counter affidavit by