M/S. Crystal Bio Equipment vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:
"A. The Petitioner humbly pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the ex-parte appellate order dated 31.05.2025 in No.AD291124020185F (Annexure-e) passed by the 2nd Respondent for the financial year 2019-20. B. The Petitioner humbly pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the adjudication order dated 31.05.2025 in No.500/2024-25 (FY: 2019-20) (Annexure-E) passed by the 2nd Respondent for the financial year 2019-20. C. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice, in the Petitioner's case."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39936
A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to Show-cause notice dated 22.04.2024 issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act 2017, the petitioner’s tax consultant on behalf of the petitioner filed reply along with supporting evidence/ documents. Subsequently, the first respondent rejecting the reply filed by the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 23.08.2024 under Section 73(9)of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs. 3,19,96,690/- including the tax, interest and penalty. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 107 of the KGST/CGST Act before the second respondent. Pursuant to the said application, the second respondent issued three hearing notices vis-a-vis dated 16.01.2025, 19.02.2025 and 12.03.2025 to which neither the petitioner nor his authorized representative appeared nor filed any replies/ documents and hence the second respondent passed an order u/s. 107(11) dated 31.05.2025 confirming the demand of Rs. 3,19,96,690/-by placing the petitioner ex-parte. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39936
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was of bonafide belief that his tax-consultant who appeared before the adjudication proceedings would represent the petitioner in the appeal proceedings also by filing replies/ documents/ personal appearances. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware that the said tax-consultant was not representing the petitioner in the appeal proceedings till he received a copy of the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the second respondent. 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 notices 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 notice and contest the proceedings. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39936
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 as regards to the petitioner not having replied to the notices by filing replies/documents or appearing personally before the second respondent 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 pre- intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which 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 order dated 31.05.2025 passed under section 107(11) of the KGST/CGST Act and remitting the matter back to HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39936 the second respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the notices dated 16.01.2025, 19.02.2025 and 12.03.2025 by imposing cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner payable to the High Court Legal Service Authority.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-E dated 31.05.2025 passed by the second respondent is hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for consideration of the matter afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 12.11.2025 without awaiting further notice; failing which the present order shall HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39936 automatically stand recalled without further reference to Bench. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19
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.