M/S Md Engineers vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an ex parte adjudication order issued under Section 73, 50, and 122 of the GST Acts, stemming from alleged mismatches in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A returns. The petitioner sought an additional opportunity to respond, citing the proprietor's personal tragedies and health issues that prevented participation in the proceedings.
Held
The High Court found the petitioner's reasons for non-response to be bona fide and quashed the ex parte adjudication order. It restored the proceedings to the first respondent, granting the petitioner liberty to file a response and additional documents by a specified date.
Key Issues
Whether an ex parte adjudication order should be quashed when the taxpayer demonstrates genuine inability to respond to notices. Whether the taxpayer should be granted an opportunity to explain alleged discrepancies in GST returns.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 50, Section 122
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
RESPONDENT(ANNEXURE-A)ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 73 BEARING REF NO. ZD290324061583A DATED 22/3/2024 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LGSTO-070, BANGALORE- DGSTO-2-FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A1) SUMMARY OF ORDER IN FORM DRC-07 BEARING REF NO. ZD2906241272584 DATED 26/6/2024 FOR PERIOD APRIL 2019 TO MARCH 2020-(ANNEXURE-B).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28538 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, a proprietary concern and a registered taxpayer under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’], has called in question the Adjudication Order dated 20.06.2024 [Annexure-A] under Section 73 of the Act read with the relevant Rules. The impugned order is an ex parte order, and the proceedings are begun with the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A on 01.02.2024 and are concluded after the Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2024. Sri E I Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner seeks interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India requesting for an additional opportunity because the petitioner's proprietor lost his wife in the year 2022, and even as a 47-year-old, he has health conditions which required him to be HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28538 under constant medical care when the Show Cause Notice is issued and the proceedings are conducted for the impugned Adjudication Order. The learned counsel relies upon the medical records that are produced. On merits, Sri E I Sanmathi submits that the proceedings are because of an alleged mismatch in the Returns filed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, but the petitioner will ensure evidence is produced to explain the mismatch as would be permissible under the relevant Circular.
Sri K Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is bona fide in showing cause against the failure to respond to the Intimation/Show Cause Notice and participate in the proceedings resulting in the impugned Adjudication Order. The petitioner must have an opportunity to explain the difference in HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28538 the documents as would be permissible. Hence the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The Adjudication Order dated 20.06.2024 [Annexure-A] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the first respondent with liberty to the petitioner to file its response and additional documents with the first respondent by 13.07.2026. (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.