Shri. Narasimhalu Naidu vs. The Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original, alleging a procedural irregularity due to the respondent's failure to furnish a copy of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 21.04.2021 despite formal requests. The respondent had concluded proceedings opining that the petitioner failed to show cause despite opportunities extended.
Held
The High Court found a procedural irregularity resulting in a lack of opportunity for the petitioner, as the SCN was not provided. It quashed the impugned Order-in-Original and restored the proceedings, directing the respondent to furnish the SCN, provide a reasonable opportunity for response, and then conclude the adjudication afresh.
Key Issues
Whether the Order-in-Original was valid when the petitioner was allegedly not furnished with the Show Cause Notice, thereby denying a reasonable opportunity to respond and violating principles of natural justice.
Sections Cited
Section 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order-in- Original dated 11.12.2025 [Annexure-A] under Section 73[2] of the Finance Act, 1994, and the petitioner's grievance with this order, at this stage, is based on an alleged procedural irregularity viz., in failing to furnish a copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2021. 2. The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.21265/2023 has called in question a similar adjudication order dated 31.07.2023 for the same tax period. This Court has disposed of this petition and other similar petitions on 16.07.2024 restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with the opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. It is during the pendency of this petition in W.P. No.21265/2023 that the Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2021 and the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29252 Intimation for personal hearing on 24.01.2025 and 07.02.2025 are issued.
The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's representative appeared before the first respondent and made a request for a copy of the Show Cause Notice and that the representative followed that with a formal written request on 10.03.2026 but the petitioner is not issued with Show Cause Notice. The petitioner alleges that there is a denial of a complete opportunity to show cause against the conclusion of the proceedings. Ms. Lochana S Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aravind V Chavan, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard.
The first respondent has concluded the proceedings opining that the petitioner has failed to show cause despite opportunity extended, and in fact, the first respondent has referred to the decisions of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29252 Apex Court to assert that extending opportunities when there is failure to respond would be exasperating. However, what emerges is that a formal request is made and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner did not show cause despite being served with a copy of the Show Cause Notice. This Court opines, that there is a ‘procedural irregularity’ resulting in lack of opportunity. Hence the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part. [b] The impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.12.2025 [Annexure-A] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for due consideration calling upon the petitioner to appear with the first respondent without further notice on 13.07.2026. [c] The first respondent shall furnish a copy of the Show Cause Notice to the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29252 petitioner on such date extending a reasonable opportunity to file a detailed response and then conclude the proceedings. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
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.