Sri C Siddaraju vs. State Of Karnataka

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to an intimation notice at Annexure-E in Form GST DRC- 01A dated 18.05.2024, the 2nd respondent issued a show-cause HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54475 notice dated 28.05.2024 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that the Output tax liability declared by the petitioner in returns furnished under Section 39 is less than the output tax liability declared in statement of outward supplies furnished in Form GSTR-1. Since the petitioner did not reply to the said notices, the 2nd respondent passed an adjudication order dated 29.07.2024 under Section 73(9) of the CGST / KGST Act confirming a total demand of Rs.26,54,784/- along with interest and penalty, without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal as well as an application for condonation of delay on 02.04.2025 which was dismissed as barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not receive the aforesaid notices issued by the respondents and hence could not submit reply / documents to the same which has culminated in the impugned ex-parte order and if an opportunity is given to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54475 petitioner to file reply / documents to the said notices by setting aside the impugned ex-parte order, the petitioner would do so and the 2nd respondent may be directed to pass fresh order after considering the replies / documents filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 28.05.2024 is barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the KGST Act and as such, the availability of equivalent, efficacious and alternative remedy by way of filing of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST / KGST Act would not come in the way of the petitioner prosecuting the present petition.

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents – revenue submits that the period of limitation has been extended by the respondents vide Notification No.13/2022 dated 05.07.2022, Notification Nos. 9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 and 08.12.2023 respectively and as such, it cannot be said that the proceedings are barred by limitation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the Petition in Special Leave Appeal (C) No. 4240/2025 pending before the Apex Court in order to contend that the validity HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54475 of the said Notifications are seized by the Apex Court and pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by both sides which will indicate that the validity of the aforesaid Notifications are seized by the Apex Court and which will have an impact / bearing on the impugned proceedings, I am of the view that one more opportunity is required to be granted in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned adjudication order and remitting the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.

Under these circumstances, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that there are no conflicting orders, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a fresh adjudication order in accordance with law after disposal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025 by the Apex Court.

In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER