M/S Lakshmi Engineering Works vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A.
A perusal of the said order at Annexure-A would indicate that the Department on verification of GSTR-9 returns for the Financial year 2018-19 had observed that the petitioner has availed excess ITC of Rs.3,29,163/- and accordingly, show cause notice came to be issued. As the petitioner has not made out reply to the show cause notice, the authority, on the basis of material available has completed its adjudication.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-participation was due to bonafide reasons and the petitioner if granted an opportunity would demonstrate that the alleged discrepancy regarding availment of ITC would be demonstrated to be an improper allegation made. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15694 WP No. 7034 of 2026
Taking note of such contention and noticed that the authority did not have benefit of reply to the show cause notice, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of vide Annexure-A and remit the matter to the stage of reply to show cause notice.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of. All contentions on merit are kept open.
Petitioner, to appear before respondent No.2/Superintendent of Central Taxes on 17.04.2026 without waiting for any further notice. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE
BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28
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.