M/S V V Systems And Power Panels vs. The Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s V V Systems and Power Panels Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an adjudication order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-6.7. The petitioner had received a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 30.05.2024 and submitted a reply in Form GSR DRC-01 dated 27.06.2024. The petitioner's grievance was that the adjudication order was passed without considering their detailed reply and without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondents, represented by the HCGP, argued that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.
Held
The Court held that the impugned adjudication order and the summary order in Form GST DRC 07, both dated 24.08.2024, were liable to be set aside. The Court found that despite the petitioner submitting a detailed reply, it had not been considered by the respondents in its proper perspective. Additionally, the respondents had failed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for a personal hearing as requested. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court deemed it appropriate to remit the matter back to the second respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the second respondent on 19.11.2025, and liberty was granted to submit further replies and documents, which the second respondent was to consider after providing a reasonable opportunity and hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 24.08.2024, bearing no. ACCT(A)-6.7/DGSTO-6/73/115/2024-25, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 2) is liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and denial of personal hearing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned adjudication order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as their detailed reply, submitted in response to the show cause notice, was not considered by the adjudicating authority. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that they were denied an opportunity for a personal hearing, which they had sought. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was devoid of merit and ought to be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "Wherefore, in the facts and circumstances stated above, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order, quashing the impugned adjudication order dated 24.08.2024 bearing no. ACCT(A)-6.7/DGSTO-6/73/115/2024-25 passed by Respondent No. 2 vide ANNEXURE-F; b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order, quashing the impugned summary order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 24.08.2024 bearing reference No. ZD2908240933680 passed by Respondent No. 2 vide ANNEXURE-G; c)Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents issued a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 30.05.2024 to which petitioner submitted a reply Annexure D dated 27.06.2024 in Form GSR DRC-01. It is the grievance of the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40873 petitioner that though the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply putting forth all contentions, the second respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned adjudication order at Annexures F and G dated 24.08.2024 without considering the reply submitted by petitioner and without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner who is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that though a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner, the same has not been considered by the respondents in its proper perspective and since the respondents did not provide an opportunity of personal hearing as sought for by the petitioner, it is just and appropriate to adopt justice oriented approach in order to enable the respondents to reconsider the matter afresh and therefore, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the and remit the matter back to the second respondent for reconsideration HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40873 afresh in accordance with law, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within a period of six weeks from today.
(ii) The impugned order dated 24.08.2024 bearing No.ACCT (A)-6.7/DGSTO-6/73/115/2024-25 vide Annexure-F and impugned summary order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 24.08.2024 bearing reference No.ZD2908240933680 passed by 2nd respondent vide Annexure-G are hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the second respondent on 19.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the second respondent, failing which the present order shall stand recalled automatically, without further reference to the Bench and without further orders. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40873 (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the second respondent, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hear him and proceed further, in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
tsn* List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
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.