Shri Nagaram Choudhary vs. 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:
"i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ / order quashing and setting aside Annexure-A DRC-07 dated 26.03.2024 vide No. ACCT(P)/LGSTO-270/DRC-07/2023-24; ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ / order / direction to Respondent No.2 to restore the appeal and provide an opportunity of being heard to represent the case on merits and documentation; vide Annexure-F. iii) Grant ad interim relief as prayed for ; and iv) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the intimation in Form DRC-01A dated 29.11.2023, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act/KGST Act 2017 as to why tax HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39554 and interest should not be levied under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act/KGST Act. Since the petitioner did not reply to the said show- cause notice, respondent No.1 passed the adjudication order dated 26.03.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.7,77,421/- including the tax, interest and penalty. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1, which was rejected stating that they are not empowered to condone the delay beyond condonable period. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the intimation in form DRC-01A dated 29.11.2023 nor the show- cause notice dated 27.12.2023, under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 were communicated or served upon the petitioner and he was not aware of the said proceedings. So also, physical copies of the aforesaid notices were not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner is a cancer patient and was undergoing treatment as could be seen from the medical records at Annexure-E and consequently, he was not in a position to submit a reply to the same or contest the proceedings, which culminated in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39554 the impugned ex-parte order. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal on 03.09.2024, which was dismissed as barred by limitation vide impugned order dated 06.08.2025. 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 since the intimation 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39554
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 contest the proceedings, it 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. So also the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
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 26.03.2024 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice.
In the result, I pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39554 ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure-A is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 10.11.2025 at 11.00 p.m. without awaiting further notice from the first respondent; failing which, the present order shall stand recalled automatically.
(v) 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 and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
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.