M/S Parvathi Plates Products vs. Office Of The Asst.
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:
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner's case and after examining the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed under section 73 (9) DRC 07 of the Act, in Order No: ACCT(A)-6.1/DGSTO-6/ADJ-Order/2023- 24, dt: 12.04.2024 at ANNEXURE - D as well as the Order passed under section 73 of the Act in reference no: ZD290424027903A, dt: 12.04.2024 at ANNXURE D1 passed by the 1st Respondent, and,
ii. A Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39810 Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondents by themselves, their subordinate, servants and agents to withdraw and cancel the order passed under section 73 (9) DRC 07 of the Act, in Order No: ACCT(A)- 6.1/DGSTO-6/ADJ-Order/2023-24, dt: 12.04.2024 at ANNEXURE-D as well as the Order passed under section 73 of the Act in reference no: ZD290424027903A,dt: 12.04.2024 at ANNXURE D1 passed by the 1st Respondent, and,
iii. A Writ of Prohibition or a Writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prohibiting and restraining the Respondents by themselves, their subordinate, servants and agents from taking any action in furtherance or consequent to impugned order passed under section 73 (9) DRC 07 of the Act, in Order No: ACCT(A)-6.1/DGSTO-6/ADJ- Order/2023-24, dt: 12.04.2024 at ANNEXURED as well as the Order passed under section 73 of the Act in reference no: ZD290424027903A, dt: 12.04.2024 at ANNXURE D1 passed by the 1st Respondent, and,
iv. Grant the interim relief in terms of prayer (iii) above, and v. Issue such other order, writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit; and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39810 vi. Direct the Respondents to pay the costs of this Writ Petition.
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 intimation in Form DRC-01A dated 20.01.2024 to the petitioner who did not file any reply/response to the same, the respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice dated 25.01.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that there was a difference in availment of ITC between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. Since the petitioner did not submit his reply to the said show-cause notice also, the respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.1,25,838/- including the tax, interest and penalty. In pursuance of the same, the respondent No.1 issued notice dated 31.05.2025 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 directing attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts for recovery of the alleged tax dues. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39810
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s previous tax consultant who was instrumental in GST registration of the Petitioner firm had provided his e-mail-id for communication of notices/ orders and later when the Petitioner opted for the services of a different tax-consultant all notices were sent to the same e-mail id of the previous tax-consultant and the same were not brought to the notice of the Petitioner and hence the petitioner hence couldn't submit replies/ documents to neither the pre-intimation notice nor the show-cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly couldn’t contest the proceedings. Pursuant to the respondent No.2 issuing an intimation to the petitioner intimating the freezing of its bank account, the petitioner realized regarding the said proceedings and with no option has approached 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39810 the impugned order, the petitioner would submit a reply to the show-cause notice and contest the proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that in the event the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, the petitioner would contest the proceedings on all grounds except the ground of limitation which has been expressly/ consciously given up for the purpose of the present order.
Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that since the pre-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 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 received the intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39810 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.
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 12.04.2024 and remitting the matter back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not raise the ground of limitation which has been expressly/ consciously given up for the purpose of the present order.
In the result, I pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39810 ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders dated 12.04.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexures – D & D1 as well as impugned notice dated 31.05.2025 at Annexure - E issued by the respondent No.2 are hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting its reply to the notice dated 25.01.2024 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – C.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 11.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the respondent No.1. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, pleadings, documents etc., which HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39810 shall be considered by the respondent No.1 who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.
(vi) In the event, the Petitioner does not appear before the respondent No.1 on 11.11.2025 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
MDS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7
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.