M/S Santosh Kumar vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by respondent No.2 marked at Annexure-H vide GST AP No.289/2024-25 dated 14/02/2025 for the period 2018-19 vide order number ZD2903250018400 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
b) Issue a writ of declaration or writ in the nature of declaration, declaring that, there in no provision of pass two adjudication orders for the same assessment years, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
c) Issue any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the interest of justice including the cost of the Writ Petition."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40156
A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to intimation notice in GST-DRC-01A dated 05.10.2023 under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/KGST Rules, 2017, to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 15.12.2023 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that the petitioner had wrongly availed ITC from one M/s. A.R.S.Enterprises to an extent of Rs.2,36,784/- . Since the petitioner did not submit its reply to the said show-cause notice also, the 3rd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.2,69,562/- including the tax, interest and penalty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 had previously adjudicated on the same issue with regard to the petitioner and had dropped the proceedings vide order dated 29.11.2023. Since, the respondents had already dropped the proceedings the petitioner was on bonafide belief that the matter had attained finality and he was not aware of re-initiation of the proceedings and hence could not submit reply to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40156 aforesaid notices and the same culminated in the impugned ex- parte order. It is submitted that pursuant to the petitioner knowing about the impugned order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 19.11.2024, which was dismissed on merits. 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 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 since the intimation notice and show-cause notice were duly communicated electronically to the petitioner by uploading the same on GST portal as well as e-mail, the petitioner cannot complain that he was not aware of impugned proceedings and as HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40156 such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having not notice regarding the revival of the proceedings and the consequent issuance of intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to contest the proceedings, is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. So also, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent has been dismissed on merits.
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 25.04.2024 and remitting the matter HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40156 back to the 3rd 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 15.12.2023. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order – dated 25.04.2024 passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 73(9) of the CGST/LGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – F as well as impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 107(11) of the KGST Act, 2017 are hereby set aside
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 17.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the first 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40156 and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.
(vi) In the event, the Petitioner does not appear before the 3rd respondent on 17.11.2025 as stated supra, the present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SV
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.