National Transcare vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Original PDF →
WP/23623/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01049604202531 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44509 WP No. 23623 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 23623 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: NATIONAL TRANSCARE A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. SIRAJUDDIN SON OF MR. SHAIK MOHIUDDIN AGE ABOUT 64 YEARS, KENCHAGHATA, TIPTUR – 572 201 EMAIL: srivatsalaw@gmail.com MOB: 89714 70774 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT), B. H. ROAD, TIPTUR – 572 201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING NO. ACCT/AUDIT/TPR/ORD/F.N 99 (2023-24)/2024-25 DATED 29.08.2024 (ANNEXURE -A) PASSED AND ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44509 WP No. 23623 of 2025

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any such other appropriate writ/s to quash the impugned Adjudication Order bearing No.ACCT/Audit/TPR/ORD/F. N 99 (2023- 24)/2024-25 dated 29.08.2024 [Annexure-A] passed and issued by the Respondent; (b) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2.

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

3.

A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to notice in Form GST DRC-01 A dated 12.04.2024, issued by the respondent, the petitioner did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 23.05.2024 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that the petitioner had claimed excess input tax when compared to GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Since the petitioner did not submit his reply to the said show-cause notice also, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44509

29.08.

2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.12,67,820 /- including the tax, interest and penalty.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances, and sufficient cause the petitioner couldn't submit documents to neither the intimation notice nor the show-cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly couldn’t contest the proceedings so also the respondent failed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner having no option has approached 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 intimation notice and show-cause notice and contest the proceedings was due to bona fide 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44509

6.

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, the counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and the fact that the petitioner did not file its reply/ documents, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.

8.

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 bona fide 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 order dated 29.08.2024 and remitting the matter back to the 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44509

22.05.

2024 by imposing cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.

9.

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 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent under 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – A is hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting its reply to the notice dated 22.05.2024 issued under section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – B.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 28.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44509 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 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.: 33

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.