M/S S S Enterprises vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
QUASHING THE EX-PARTE ADJUDICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE GST ACTS, DATED 29-07- 2024, IN FORM GST DRC-07, BEARING NO. DCCT (A)/CKM/2024-25/T-NO.1120, BY THE RESPONDENT-1, AS AT ANNEXURE-A; (B) QUASHING THE FORM GST DRC-13 BEARING NO. DCCT(A)/CKM/GST-DRC- 13/2024-25/T.NO.2074, DATED 27-11-2024, UNDER SECTION 79 OF THE GST ACTS, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-1, TO THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED, SILVER JUBILEE PARK ROAD, BENGALURU, AS AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Adjudication Order dated 29-07-2024 [Annexure - A] under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [GST Act] and the relevant provisions of this Act and the Rules. The petitioner calls this ex parte order in question asserting that its auditors HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27555 have not informed it about the Notices or the Endorsements uploaded on the portal and sent to the registered email ID.
Sri Y.C. Shivakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, emphasising the afore submits that this Court may consider that the liability is fastened on the petitioner because of the difference in the ITC claimed under GSTR-3B and ITC available under GSTR-2A on purchase from M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s Prakash Steels with the Assessing Officer observing that the petitioner has not submitted the Vendor Certificates as prescribed in the relevant Circular dated 17.07.2023. The learned counsel submits that because the petitioner's representative was not aware of the Notices and the Endorsement, the petitioner could not obtain such Certificates, but petitioner now has the benefit of such Certificate, and in fact, a copy of the Certificates are now placed on record. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27555
Sri K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, inviting this Court's attention to the details of the impugned adjudication order, submits that not only notice is issued and uploaded as required, but also Endorsements are issued for extending a personal hearing during the month of June 2024 on multiple occasions. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this Court may not take exception with the respondent concluding the assessment proceedings when the petitioner has failed to avail repeated opportunities extended.
These rival submissions are examined in the light of the undisputed position that the petitioner could rely upon the Certificate issued by the Indian Oil Corporation to explain the difference in the ITC claimed and the ITC availed with the M/s. Indian Oil Corporation certifying that they have wrongly reported the subject supply as B2C supply HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27555 instead of B2B supply in their GST Form. This Court is of the view that with this material on record there must be intervention extending another opportunity to the petitioner. Hence the following ORDER
The petition is allowed-in-part quashing the Order of Adjudication dated 29.07.2024 [Annexure-A] and the Demand in Form GST DRC-13 dated 27.11.2024 [Annexure-B], with liberty to the petitioner to file response with the respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, enclosing the Certificate issued by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV
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.