Saumitra Investments And Finance PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or Order or direction of appropriate nature to call for the records of the case and after scrutinizing the same, to set aside the Impugned Order No: ZD290925085800W, dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 3 Vide Annexure-A and the case of the Petitioner be remitted back to the Respondent No. 3 for fresh adjudication on merits after duly condoning HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54061 the delay or Alternatively the case of the Petitioner be remitted back to the Respondent No. 2 for fresh adjudication; and/or ii. Pass any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 16.11.2023, the 2nd respondent issued an intimation notice under Form GST DRC- 01A dated 01.12.2023, to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2023 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that there are some discrepancies in tax liability. Since the petitioner did not submit his reply to the said show-cause notice also, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.6,46,123/- including the tax, interest and penalty. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54061
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, couldn't submit replies/ documents to neither the pre-intimation notice nor the show-cause notice under section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly couldn’t contest the proceedings. Pursuant to being informed by the authorized bank that a request has been received from respondent No.2 and its Department that a Demand Draft of the alleged amount of Rs.6,46,123/- be sent to it as per the order dated 22.03.2024, the petitioner gained knowledge about the ex-parte proceedings being conducted. Pursuant to which, petitioner filed an appeal on 01.05.2025 which was dismissed as barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 08.09.2025. It is submitted that since the GST Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted as on today, the petitioner has no option but to approach this Court by way of the present petition interalia contending that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and submits that if one more opportunity is provided, by HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54061 setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would submit a reply to the show-cause notice and contest the proceedings.
Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, the counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and the fact that the petitioner did not file its reply/ documents culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. So also, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned orders dated 22.03.2024 and 08.09.2025 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54061 respectively and remitting the matter back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show- cause notice dated 15.12.2023, by imposing cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – D as well as impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 107(11) of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017 at Annexure - A are hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting its reply to the notice dated 15.12.2023 issued under section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – C. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54061 (iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 02.02.2026 without awaiting further notice from the 2nd respondent.
(v) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the 2nd respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.
(vi) In the event, the Petitioner does not appear before the 2nd respondent on 02.02.2026 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19
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.