Kalavai Digital Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Appeals (GST)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material on record.

A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to notice in Form ASMT-10 dated 10.07.2023, the second respondent issued an intimation notice under Form GST DRC-01A dated 12.01.2024, to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 31.01.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that there were certain discrepancies in relation to petitioner declaring zero-rated supplies. Since the petitioner did not submit his reply to the said show-cause notice also, the second respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, confirming the total demand of Rs.37,79,039/-, including the tax, interest and penalty. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43441

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unaware of the assessment due to non- communication of the statutory notices, resulting from the negligence of the outsourced agency and the lack of portal access and hence couldn't submit replies/ documents to neither the pre- intimation notice nor the show-cause notice dated 31.01.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly couldn’t contest the proceedings. Pursuant to the bank attachment notice, the petitioner filed an appeal on 16.12.2024, which was rejected on the ground of delay in submission of appeal vide impugned order dated 07.03.2025. 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 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:43441

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 the petitioner was unaware of the assessment due to non-communication of the statutory notices, resulting from the negligence of the outsourced agency and lack of portal access 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 Joint Commissioner has been rejected 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 order dated 07.03.2025 at Annexure C passed by the Joint Commissioner and the order dated 27.04.2024 at HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43441 Annexure B passed by the respondent No.2, remitting the matter back to the second 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 31.01.2024, 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