M/S Skyroof INDIA vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to notice in Form GST ASMT - 10 dated 12.01.2024, the second respondent issued an intimation notice under Form GST DRC-01A dated 27.03.2024, to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the second respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 09.05.2024 under HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39480 Section 73(1) 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 second respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 read with section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 and section 50 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.37,51,079/- including the tax, interest and penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo along with copy of the medical prescription and certificate pertaining to the proprietor, pertaining to Mrs. Saroja Chellam, the sole proprietor of the petitioner - proprietary concern and the same is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole proprietor of the Petitioner firm Mrs. Saroja Chellam, who is aged about 71 years was undergoing treatment due to severe health conditions and 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39480 the proceedings. Pursuant to the said sole proprietor recovering from the ailments, the petitioner filed an appeal on 16.06.2025 which was dismissed as barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 24.07.2025. 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 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 there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, in view of the fact that the sole proprietor underwent treatment due to severe health conditions and the fact that the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39480 petitioner did not file its reply/ documents, culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. So also the appeal filed by the petitioner before the first respondent has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation and as such, there is no impediment for this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner in the present petition since the appellate authority has not considered the appeal 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 orders dated 03.08.2024 and 24.07.2025 remitting the matter back to the second 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 09.05.2024. 9. In the result, I pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39480 ORDER