Page 160 - GSTL_18th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 3

374 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
pugned herein are without the jurisdiction and hence, I declare
them as non est/void.
(2) For another reason also, these best judgment orders cannot be
sustained in law. The best judgment assessment under Section 62
can be made by taking into account all the relevant material which
are already available and/or the material available which is gath-
ered from the other sources. It is also clear from the settled judicial
principles on best judgment assessment that the estimations in-
volved in the best judgment assessment should not be based on
mere surmises and/or conjectures. Though estimations are involved
in the best judgment assessment, the same cannot be without any
basis or with some basis. In the instant case, uniformly the sup-
pressed turnovers for a particular month are estimated either most-
ly on the basis of returns of the outward supplies of the dealer in
Form GSTR-1 of that month or on the basis of the return in Form
GSTR-3B for the preceding month. The quantum of the outward
supplies declared by the dealer in such return is held to be incorrect
and incomplete and the same is inflated to 150% of the declared
outward supplies to arrive at the probable suppressed outward
supplies for that month @ 50% (150% - 100%).
This cannot be treated as the correct basis for the estimation. No at-
tempt is made by the CTO to gather any material to at least indicate,
not to talk of establish, that the quantum of the outward supplies
declared by the dealer/supplier in Form GSTR-1 for that month is
incorrect and incomplete. It is not even rejected by the AA. But, still
the best judgment of the quantum of the outward supplies is made
declaring uniformly for all the months that the dealer has sup-
pressed 50% of its declared outward supplies in the relevant
months. Thus, the estimations involved in the best judgment as-
sessment herein are not sustainable. They are whimsical. They have
no basis. It is declared accordingly. The same are deleted.
Besides, it is judicially settled law that the estimations fall foul of
law if they are smacked off factors like wildness, vindictiveness, ar-
bitrariness, capriciousness, etc., The best judgment orders in issue
cannot be sustained even on these touch stones laid down by the
Apex Court in the catena of cases starting from the case of Commis-
sioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. H.M. Esuf Ali Abdulla (way back in 1973)
32 STC 77 SC.
Conclusion :
Therefore, in view of the above emerged anomalies involving in-
voking of Section 62 unlawfully, because the relevant Section 39
does not speak of GSTR-3B in the listed returns for the disputed pe-
riod, as clarified in the above discussed judgment and in view of the
erroneous method adopted by A.A for estimating outward taxable
supplies through best judgment without mentioning rea-
sons/evidence, hence the tax so levied by the A.A of
Rs. 3,43,96,432/- is annulled and modified as per actual tax liability of
the appellant for the period from January, 2019 to February, 2019. In
the result, the appeal is modified by fixing the actual tax liability
from Rs. 3,43,96,432/- (annulled) (to be determined as per GSTR-1
GST LAW TIMES  18th June 2020  160