M/S. Shivamogga City Corporation vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or and quash the order bearing No.GST/AP-186/2024-25 dated 02.09.2025 passed by Respondent No.3 at Annexure –A. b) Issue a writ of certiorari or and quash the order bearing No. No. order bearing No. DCCT, (AUDIT) SMG /T:41/2024-25 dated 10.04.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 at Annexure -B. c) Issue a direction to the Respondent No.3 to reconsider the appeal at Annexure - F afresh by considering all the materials placed on record by the Petitioner by providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and pass orders thereon. d) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54064
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 15.12.2023, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner who submitted a reply which culminated in an adjudication order dated 10.04.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner- corporation having preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent - Appellate Authority, the petitioner put forth new grounds, defences and contentions, which were not raised before the adjudicating Authority. Under these circumstances, the 3rd respondent - Appellate Authority proceeded to reject the additional grounds, submissions, contentions etc., raised by the petitioner before him on the premise that the same was not permissible in view of Rule 112(8) of the KGST/CGST Rules, 2017 and consequently, proceeded to dismiss the appeal by passing the impugned order, which is assailed in the impugned order at Annexure-A, which is assailed in the present petition.
A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 02.09.2025 will indicate that the 3rd respondent - Appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that it is only additional evidence that is permissible under Rule 112(3) and the petitioner HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54064 has not made out sufficient cause as to why the contentions were not urged before the Adjudicating Authority. In this context, apart from the fact that Rule 112 applies only to additional evidence which is sought to be produced before the Appellate Authority and the said Rule will not act as an embargo or a bar for the petitioner to put forth additional contentions before the Appellate Authority which were not put forth before the Adjudicating Authority, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner had made out valid and sufficient ground/cause to demonstrate as to why the petitioner could not put forth these contentions before the Adjudicating Authority. It is also pertinent to note that while dismissing the appeal on merits, the 3rd respondent - Appellate Authority has not given any findings on the merits of the claim of the petitioner on the grounds already urged by them as well as the grounds additionally taken up before the Appellate Authority.
Under these circumstances, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth all contentions including additional contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 at Annexure-A and remit the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54064 matter back to the 3rd respondent - Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER
i) The petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 02.09.2025 at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.3- Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to put forth the additional grounds/contentions/submissions etc., which shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law on merits.
v) Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit his applications/documents, which shall also be considered by respondent No.3 in accordance with law to HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54064 enable respondent No.3 – Appellate Authority to consider all the contentions, grounds and submissions put forth by the petitioner including the additional grounds/ contentions/ submissions etc.
vi) The petitioner is directed to file a detailed memo in writing along with the said additional grounds/contentions/submissions etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.3, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to petitioner and consider in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44
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.