The Orissa High Court, in a ruling, quashed a GST assessment order passed against an unregistered contractor after finding that the proceedings were initiated due to confusion arising from identical names and erroneous reliance on data from the Works and Accounts Management Information System (WAMIS) and the Income Tax portals.
The applicant, Srikant Das, was a works contractor who had discontinued business work in 2016 and did not get registration post the rollout of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Even after the same proceedings were started against him by generating a temporary GSTIN and issuing a notice in Form GST ASMT-14.
The applicant was clueless regarding the initiation of these proceedings, and an ex parte assessment order was passed, ministering him as an unregistered taxable person and raising a demand. The submitted appeal was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), confirming the assessment.
Without verification, the authorities relied on the available data on the Works and Accounts Management Information System and the Income Tax Portal, the counsel of the applicant said. They claimed that the information was linked to another contractor sharing the same name, who was registered under the GST Act, and argued that an arbitrary assessment had been passed against the applicant.
Applicant, if provided a chance, then he would have cited why he had discontinued the business long before the GST regime came into effect. Before the court, the counsel of state placed written guidelines and said that the information of turnover relied on by the department pertained to a different person who was registered under GST and had the same name.
Also Read: Orissa HC Relief for Jindal Steel in GSTR-3B vs GST E-Way Bill Mismatch Dispute
They said that the confusion had arisen because of the same names and wrong attribution of portal data, and it was acknowledged that the assessment order had been passed against an unregistered person on the same mistaken basis.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari SriRaman stated that the assessment and appellate authorities proceeded on a wrong assumption concerning the identity of the taxable person. The court noted that the assessment order could not stand, as it was acknowledged that the data used pertained to a different registered contractor with the same name.
The court cited that the assessment order passed u/s 63 of the GST Act and the appellate order validating the same were legally not sustainable. Both orders have been quashed by the court and permitted the writ petition.
| Case Title | Srikant Das Vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax |
| Case No. | W.P.(C) No.35072 of 2025 |
| For Petitioner | Mr Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, Advocate |
| For Respondent | Mr Sunil Mishra, Standing Counsel (for State CT & GST) |
| Orissa High Court | Read Order |
