M/S. Sri Maruthi Traders vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

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 notice in Form GST DRC-01A dated 20.07.2024 issued to the petitioner, who did not issue any HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42045 reply/response to the same, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 28.11.20524 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that the taxable turnover declared in GSTR-3B was less than taxable turnover in GSTR-1. Since the petitioner did not submit his reply to the said show-cause notice also, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 under Section 79(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs. 6,66,336/- including the tax, interest and penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent did not serve the notices to the petitioner except that the same were only uploaded on the common GST portal which went unnoticed by the petitioner and hence he couldn't submit replies/ 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. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner having no option has approached this Court by HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42045 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.

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that the petitioner was granted numerous opportunities by way of intimation notices, show-cause notices and several remainders and the petitioner did not exercise due diligence in replying to the same and hence 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 all HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42045 the aforesaid notices were not served on the petitioner and were only uploaded in the common GST portal and as such the same doesn’t amount to sufficient service 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 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 orders dated 18.02.2025 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 28.11.2024 subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the total tax demand including interest and penalty i.e., Rs.37,258/- (Rupees HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42045 Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Eight only) on the date of personal hearing.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER