Shri Dasari Rajakumara Contractor vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Tax (Appeals)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has availed the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 being aggrieved by the Adjudication Order under Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Acts’]. The Appellate Authority vide the order dated 01.01.2025 has rejected the appeal on limitation. The petitioner has also filed an application for rectification of the Order-in-Appeal, and this application is rejected vide order dated 04.09.2025. 2. The Order-in-Original dated 16.12.2023 is an ex parte order. Sri Pranay Sharma Y., the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues for interference emphasizing: • The petitioner has deposited 10% of the tax amount while availing the appellate remedy. • The Order-in-Original is concluded ex parte. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33982 • The authorities have relied upon the Notification No.09/2023 dated 31.03.2023 to claim enlarged period of limitation but this Notification is called in question. • The challenge is pending consideration with the Apex Court asserting that in similar circumstances this Court in W.P.No.17774/2026 [T-RES] has granted interim order on 16.06.2026. 3. Sri K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first, second and fourth respondents, is heard for the disposal of the petition in the light of the following circumstances. [a] The petitioner is served with the Orders-in Original dated 16.12.2023 by RPAD on 20.12.2023 as observed in the Order-in- Appeal and Order on the rectification application. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33982 [b] The petitioner has filed an appeal under Section 107 of the Act on 18.03.2024. The appellate authority has concluded the proceedings because the Orders-in-Original are uploaded on the website on 16.12.2023. [c] The petitioner has also accepted the receipt of such communication, and the appeal is presented on 18.03.2024. The appellate authority has opined that hence the appeal is delayed by two days. [c] The Appellate Authority has referred to certain provisions of the Acts and decisions.
This Court must observe that even if the appeal is to be construed as delayed by two days, it would still be within the period in which the delay could be condoned. As such, this Court is of the view that delay of two days in the circumstances could not have been a reason to reject the appeal. Therefore, there must be interference with both the impugned HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33982 Orders [the Order-in-Appeal and on the rectification application].
This Court must next examine whether there should be interference with the Order-in- Original dated 16.12.2023. It is undisputed that the Order-in-original dated 16.12.2023 is an ex parte orders, and the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand proposed in the show cause notice because the petitioner has not responded when served with both the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A and the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 are sent on its email account.
The proceedings are initiated upon ascertaining the details of certain transactions on a third-party portal viz., MGNREGA portal and observing certain discrepancies in the details as available on the website and the details as per GSTR- 7 and filed in GSTR-3B. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that if an opportunity is extended, he can HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33982 produce documents which could reconcile the details as filed in GSTR-3B.
This Court, in similar circumstances but when this Court's juri iction is invoked without filing an appeal, has intervened to restore the proceedings with an opportunity to file a reply and produce documents to justify the declaration in Form GSTR-3B on terms such as the concerned must reply and produce documents within a timeline and deposit 10% of the tax in demand subject to the final outcome. The petitioner in this case has already deposited 10% of the tax in demand while availing the appellate remedy.
The circumstances discussed persuade this Court to interfere with the Orders-in-Original. Insofar as the petitioner’s grievance with the authorities relying upon the Notification No.09/2023 dated 31.03.2023 to avail extended period of limitation, this Court of the opinion that the petitioner must be reserved with liberty to raise a challenge in HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33982 that regard if there is occasion despite due consideration of documents filed upon the restoration of the proceedings in terms of this Order. In the light of the aforesaid, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.09.2025 [Annexure-A1] on rectification, the Order-in-Appeal dated 01.01.2025 [Annexure-A2], the Order-in- Original dated 16.12.2023 [Annexure-A3], and the Summary of the Order-in-Original dated 16.12.2023 [Annexure-A4] are quashed subject to the following terms. [a] The proceedings are restored to the second respondent for due consideration with an opportunity to the petitioner to file response by 31.08.2026 leaving open all the questions to be considered. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33982 [b] The petitioner is permitted to file, along with the certified copy of this Order, the copies of the documents to show the genuineness of the transactions along with the reconciliation, if any.
[c] The petitioner shall produce these documents by 31.08.2026 and the second respondent shall consider these documents and then conclude the proceedings by a reasoned order. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
SA Ct:sr
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.