M/S. Comorin Consulting Services INDIA Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

The Adjudication Order is premised in the assertion that the Show Cause Notice is issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner has filed no response.

Sri Swamy M M, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings are concluded because of alleged discrepancies in declaration of turnover as export of service between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 and that the petitioner could not for bonafide reasons respond to the Show HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35045 Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01. The learned counsel canvasses the following: [i] The Petitioner has not mentioned the invoice-wise Export details in Table 6A of GSTR-1, but the petitioner has declared both the Taxable Turnover and the Zero- Rated Turnover in GSTR-3B. The Petitioner can justify the declarations so filed because its Zero-rated services are for export services. [ii] The assessment proceedings are completed observing that the petitioner has not filed any reply when in fact the petitioner has filed the Reply dated 29.02.2024 [Annexure-C] to the Intimation dated 20.11.2023 in Form GST DRC-01A. [iii] The Board Circulars dated 27.12.2022 and 17.07.2023 are issued covering the subject tax period which envisages an opportunity to a Registered Taxable HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35045 Person [RTP] to produce documents to establish the nature of transactions.

Sri K Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, is heard for the disposal of the petition examining whether the petitioner must be extended another reasonable opportunity in view of the above. The first respondent has referred to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC- 01 dated 29.12.2023 and the opportunity being granted in the following terms: “9.1 This office is directed to re-list this petition on has not received any of the reply till the date of passing the order even after providing with sufficient opportunity to explain their stand.” HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35045

The petitioner’s appeal is rejected on the ground of limitation observing that the delay beyond 120 days from the date of the Adjudication Order cannot be condoned in law. The petitioner asserts that the appeal could not be filed within the time allowed because the Adjudication order is an ex-parte order. The petitioner contends that the mismatch between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 can be explained with the support of the documents, and certificates as permissible in terms of the Board Circulars. The circumstances asserted by the petitioners and the terms of the Circular persuade this Court to opine that the petitioner must have another opportunity, and hence, the following.