Abdul Khader Basha vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Adjudication Order dated 16.01.2024 [Annexure-A] under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’]. The petitioner is called upon to pay demand including penalty because of the mismatch in GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B between April 2018 and March 2019 and in GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 between September, 2018 to March, 2019 and delay in filing GSTR-3B between April, 2018 and October, 2018. 2. Sri Pradyumna G. Hejib, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is served with the intimation in Form GST DRC 01A HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31322 and the show cause notice in Form GST DRC -01 only with these being uploaded on the portal and the petitioner was not aware of the conclusion until a demand was raised and that the petitioner, who was willing to pay penalty for the delay in filing the returns in GSTR-1 and GSTR-9 for September 2018 to March 2019, if extended an opportunity, can offer justifiable explanation with documents.
Sri Aravind V. Chavan, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who is called upon to accept notice, is heard with the learned standing counsel emphasizing that the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned Intimitation and Show Cause Notices were only uploaded on the portal because the impugned order is categorical in recording that the Intimation and the Notices were sent even by e-mail. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31322
However, Sri Aravind V. Chavan does not dispute that in terms of the Board Circulars, it would be open to the RTP to furnish documents to show cause against any mismatch. The petitioner pleads bona fides in its failure to offer explanation for the mismatch and the petitioner must be given an opportunity to produce documents to show cause against the proceedings, including whether the proceedings must be under Section 74 of the Act, if the petitioner can produce documents but on terms. Therefore, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the Adjudication Order dated 16.01.2024 [Annexure-A] subject to the following terms. [a] The proceedings are restored to the respondent for due consideration subject to deposit of HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31322 10% of tax imposed by 22.09.2026. [b] The petitioner is permitted to file, along with the certified copy of this order, the documents to offer explanation for the mismatch.
[c] The petitioner shall produce these documents by 22.09.2026 and the 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.