M/S Vangalahalli Thimmareddy Shankar Naayana Reddy HUF vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER BEARING NO. ACCT/LGSTO-17/R1/DRC-07/2023-24 B M Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44768 CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTER GENERATED ORDER UNDER SEC. 73 AND SUMMARY ORDER IN FORM GST DRC-07, ALL DTD. 13-03- 2024 (ANNEXURES-C) REFERENCE NO. ZD290324030595C VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E, PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-17, DGSTO-4, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “A. To issue a WRIT of CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS or any other writ or direction in the nature of a writ quashing the impugned Order bearing No. ACCT /LGSTO-17/R1/DRC-07/2023-24 consequential computer generated order under Sec. 73 and summary order in Form GST DRC – 07, all dated 13.03.2024 (ANNEXURES – ‘C’), Reference No.ZD290324030595C vide Annexure – ‘D’ & ‘E’ passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-17, DGSTO-4, Bengaluru and B. To pass any such other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon’ble court might deem fit to be issued in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44768
A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to notice in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 10.10.2023, the 2nd respondent issued an intimation notice under Form GST DRC- 01A dated 04.12.2023, to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 20.12.2023 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that there is a short declaration of tax in outward supplies. 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 13.03.2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.10,23,378/- including the tax, interest and penalty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not conversant to operate emails and common portal and hence 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. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner having no option has approached this Court by way of the present petition HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44768 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 setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would submit a reply to the show cause notice and contest the proceedings.
Per contra, learned AGA 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 the petitioner is not conversant to operate emails and common portal and the fact that the petitioner did not file its reply/ documents, culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44768 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 order dated 13.03.2024 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 20.12.2023 by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- 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.10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. (ii) The impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent under 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – C is 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44768 submitting its reply to the notice dated 20.12.2023 issued under section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – A. (iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 28.11.2025 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 first 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 28.11.2025 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28
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.