The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled on a case involving Shri Sarath Chowdary Mullapudi, a registered GST dealer who initially failed to file his GSTR-3B return for November 2022. This led the State Tax Officer to issue a notice under Section 46, and subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, passed a best-judgment assessment order under Section 62, demanding ₹32,82,612 in GST along with interest.
Read more: Supreme Court - Input Tax Credit cannot be claimed if the supplier has not deposited the tax, and the provision imposing this condition is constitutionally valid [Order attached]
The petitioner later filed the GSTR-3B return on February 17, 2023, paying the late fee and interest. Despite this, recovery proceedings continued, including a DRC-13 notice for the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
The issue before the court was whether the Section 62 best-judgment assessment and recovery could persist after the taxpayer filed a valid GSTR-3B return. The court referred to Section 62(2), which states that if a valid return is filed within 60 days of the assessment order, the order is deemed withdrawn, although liability for interest under Section 50 and late fees under Section 47 remains.
Since the petitioner met the statutory condition by filing the return within the timeframe, the court deemed the assessment order withdrawn and set it aside, allowing the writ petition without costs, and closing pending applications.
Order Date - 15 July 2026
Parties: Shri Sarath Chowdary Mullapudi v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax & Ors.
Facts -
- Petitioner, Shri Sarath Chowdary Mullapudi, a registered GST dealer, did not file his GSTR-3B return for November 2022. The State Tax Officer issued a notice under Section 46, but the return was still not filed at that stage.
- Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax passed a best-judgment assessment order under Section 62 on 19.01.2023, raising a GST demand of ₹32,82,612, along with applicable interest.
- The petitioner subsequently filed the relevant GSTR-3B return on 17.02.2023, paying the applicable late fee and interest. The department did not dispute that the return had been filed.
- Despite the subsequent filing, recovery proceedings continued, including a DRC-13 notice dated 21.05.2026 for attachment of the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner therefore approached the High Court.
Issue -
- Whether the Section 62 best-judgment assessment and consequential recovery could continue after the taxpayer filed a valid GSTR-3B return?
Order -
- The Court examined Section 62(2) of the GST Act, which provides that where a registered person furnishes a valid return within 60 days of service of the assessment order, the assessment order is deemed to have been withdrawn. However, the liability towards interest under Section 50 and late fee under Section 47 continues.
- In this case, the petitioner filed the GSTR-3B return for November 2022 on 17.02.2023, after the assessment order dated 19.01.2023, and paid the applicable late fee and interest. The Government Pleader also accepted that the return had been filed.
- Since the statutory condition under Section 62(2) was satisfied, the Court held that the assessment order dated 19.01.2023 was deemed to have been withdrawn. Therefore, the demand arising from that best-judgment assessment could not continue.
- The High Court consequently set aside the assessment order and allowed the writ petition, with no order as to costs. The pending applications were also closed
