M/S Hind Trade Links vs. Joint Commissioner Of Commercial
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner in the present writ petition seeks the following prayers: a. Set aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 bearing Appeal No.APL/GST- 48/2024-25 under Section 107(11) of the GST Act, 2017 passed by the 1st Respondent at Annexure-A, and also the order dated 24.01.2024 bearing Reference No.ACCT/Audit-1/HBL/GST/AO/23-24/B of the 2nd Respondent under Section 73(9) of the GST Act as per Annexure-A1 by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other order in the nature a Writ of Certiorari; b. Grant any other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the interest of justice and equity.
The petitioner is a proprietorship concern engaged in trading in M.S. scrap, aluminium scrap, and copper HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:665 waste scrap. Challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017/ Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the GST Act’, for short) and the appellate order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) under Section 107(11) of the GST Act, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and confirming the adjudication order the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned appellate order is vitiated on account of denial of opportunity of hearing. It is contended that the petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity to put forth its case, both orally and by way of written submissions, and that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal solely on technical grounds without examining the merits of the matter. It is HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:665 further contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order, is bereft of reasons, and does not deal with the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal. Such an approach, it is urged, is contrary to the mandate of law and the settled principles governing appellate adjudication.
Per contra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State justifies the impugned order and contends that adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and that the appellate authority was justified in confirming the adjudication order.
This has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record.
This Court finds considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority. The HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:665 impugned order does not reflect consideration of the grounds urged in the appeal, nor does it disclose any independent application of mind to the merits of the controversy. The requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is not an empty formality; it is a substantive safeguard to ensure fair adjudication.
An appellate authority exercising quasi-judicial functions is expected to consider the rival contentions and pass a reasoned order. Failure to do so results in violation of the principles of natural justice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned appellate order cannot be sustained and the matter requires to be remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration on merits, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Accordingly, this Court pass the following order: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:665 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Dharwad Division, is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. iv. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 on 09.02.2026, on which date similar matter is also listed before the said authority. v. All contentions of both parties are kept open. Respondent No.1 shall conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not later than six weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner. vi. The petitioner is at liberty to file additional documents, if any, in support of its contentions. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
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.