The case set up in W.P.(C.) No.2985/2020 is as follows :

That the petitioner is an assessee to GST on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. On account of severe financial crisis, petitioner has defaulted filing of return from November, 2018. Now, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P1 order of assessment under Sec.62 of the Act fixing the tax liability at exorbitant figures. But the said order does not comply with the yardsticks prescribed under Sec.62 of the Act. Further, the petitioner has already regularised the return for the defaulted month as seen from Ext.P2.

2. The case set up in W.P.(C.) No.2987/2020 is as follows :

That the petitioner is an assessee to GST on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. On account of severe financial crisis, petitioner has defaulted filing of return from November, 2018. Now, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P1 order of assessment under Sec.62 of the Act fixing the tax liability at exorbitant figures. But the said order does not comply with the yardsticks prescribed under Sec.62 of the Act. Further, the petitioner has already regularised the return for the defaulted month as seen from Ext.P2.  

3. The case set up in W.P.(C.) No.3059/2020 is as follows :

That the petitioner is an assessee to GST on the rolls of the 1st respondent herein. On account of severe financial crisis, petitioner has defaulted filing of return from November, 2018. Now, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P1 order of assessment under Sec.62 of the Act fixing the tax liability at exorbitant figures. But the said order does not comply with the yardsticks prescribed under Sec.62 of the Act. Further, the petitioner has already regularised the return for the defaulted month as seen from Ext.P2.

4. In the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the W.P.(C.) No.2985/2020 with the following prayers :

(i) “To quash Ext.P1 order issued by 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”

5. In the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the W.P.(C.) No.2987/2020 with the following prayers :

(i) “To quash Ext.P1 order issued by 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”

6. In the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the W.P.(C.) No.3059/2020 with the following prayers :

(i) “To quash Ext.P1 order issued by 1st respondent by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(ii) To grant the petitioner such other incidental reliefs including the costs of these proceedings.”

7. Heard Sri. Harisankar V. Menon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. M.M.Jasmine, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in this case.  

8. After having heard both sides, it is seen that the matter in issue raised in these cases is fully covered against the petitioners and in favour of the respondent revenue as per the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 23.10.2019 in W.A.No.2180/2019 and other connected appeals, wherein it has been held in para No.4 which reads as follows :

“We are not prima facie convinced that there exists any special circumstances warranting interference of this court to hold that the impugned assessments are per se illegal or unsustainable. As observed by the learned Single Judge, the assesses herein had committed default continuously in filing the returns, in responding to the notices requiring them to file the returns, in responding to the notice proposing best judgment assessments etc. Even after receipt of the impugned orders of assessment, they failed to avail the remedy provided under subsection (2) of Section 62. Under such circumstances we cannot entertain the challenges raised against the best judgment assessments finalized. Eventhough the details of the materials available before the assessing authority is not explained in the order, it can only be presumed that the best judgment assessment was completed on the basis of the materials available with the Assessing Officer.

However, we take note of the fact that, against the impugned orders the appellants have got an effective remedy by way of statutory appeal. There exists no circumstances to quash the impugned orders in exercise of the jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by permitting the appellants to bypass such effective remedy available.”

Accordingly, it is ordered that the above W.P.(C)s are bereft of any merit and the aforecaptioned W.P.(C.)s will stand dismissed.