M/S Sri Boomibalakan Metal And Alloys vs. Commercial Tax Oficer, Lgsto-81
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 as well as the Summary Order at Annexure-C2. 2. It is submitted that the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 is an ex-parte order and that the petitioner was not aware of the notices issued as the same were posted on the portal and accordingly, there was no reply to the show cause notices. It is submitted that another opportunity may be granted to make out reply and the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3677 matter be decided on the basis of such reply rather than the authority proceeding under the best judgment assessment.
Learned HCGP submits that the lapse, if any is only attributable to the petitioner.
Perused the impugned order. It is noticed that the authority has proceeded in the absence of any reply by the petitioner. Taking note of the contention made and also observing that the authority has proceeded to decide to adjudicate without any reply on behalf of the petitioner, it would be appropriate that petitioner be afforded an opportunity to make out reply to the show cause notice and the department proceed further to decide on merits.
Accordingly, taking note of the request of the petitioner, it would meet the ends of justice by setting aside the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 and the Summary Order at Annexure-C2 and remanding the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3677 matter back to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.
Accordingly, the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 and the Summary Order at Annexure-C2 are set aside. The matter is remitted in terms of the observations made above. All contentions are kept open. In light of the lapse on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 09.02.2026. Needless to state, if the petitioner does not avail of such opportunity, the indulgence granted by this Court would stand revived.
In light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE
VP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
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.