Facts of the Case:
In this case, the petitioner ceased business operations in 2016, i.e., prior to the introduction of GST, and therefore never obtained GST registration under the CGST/OGST Acts, 2017. Despite this, department initiated proceedings under Section 63 of the GST Act i.e. best judgment assessment of unregistered persons by generating a temporary GSTIN and issuing notice in Form GST ASMT-14. The petitioner was unaware of the initiation of proceedings and consequently could not participate. An ex-parte assessment order was passed, treating the petitioner as an unregistered taxable person and raising tax demand. The assessment was based primarily on data sourced from the Works and Accounts Management Information System (WAMIS) and the Income Tax Portal, which showed turnover in the name of “Srikant Das”.
The petitioner contended that the data relied upon pertained to another contractor having the same name, who was actually registered under GST with a distinct GSTIN, and that the demand arose due to wrong feeding and misidentification of data.
Issue:
Whether proceedings and assessment under Section 63 of the GST Act can be sustained against an unregistered person when the turnover data relied upon pertains to a different registered taxpayer with the same name, and the assessment is founded on a mistaken identity and blind reliance on portal data.
Held that:
The Court took note of the categorical concession by the State, supported by written instructions and a letter from the Superintending Engineer, that the turnover shown in WAMIS related to another person registered under GST, having the same name as the petitioner. The petitioner remained unregistered under GST and had ceased business much prior to GST regime.
The Court observed that the authorities proceeded mechanically on the basis of data uploaded on WAMIS and the Income Tax Portal without verification and without affording an effective opportunity of hearing. Since the very foundation of the assessment was erroneous, being based on identity confusion, the initiation of proceedings and confirmation of demand were held to be unsustainable.
The High Court held that the impugned assessment order dated 12.11.2021 passed under Section 63 of the GST Act, as well as the appellate order dated 16.02.2024, cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the Court quashed and set aside the assessment order passed under Section 63, and the appellate order confirming the same.
Case Name: Srikant Das Versus Joint Commissioner of State Tax, (Appeal), Territorial Range, Ganjam, Berhampur and others. dated 22.01.2026
To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 186
