M/S Padma Fertilizers vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes.
Original PDF →Facts
M/s Padma Fertilizers, a proprietary concern, is the petitioner, and the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and other Commercial Tax Officers are the respondents. The dispute concerns proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 through show cause notices dated 29.10.2024 and 31.10.2024. The petitioner claims these notices never reached them, and consequently, they did not participate in the adjudication proceedings. Respondent No. 3 passed an ex-parte adjudication order on 07.02.2025. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash these orders, arguing they were passed without affording an opportunity to be heard.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition in part. It found merit in the petitioner's submission that the adjudication order was passed ex-parte due to the non-receipt of show cause notices. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner did not have an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Therefore, to provide one opportunity to the petitioner to present their reply, the Court quashed the impugned adjudication order dated 07.02.2025 and the summary order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 07.02.2025. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 3, directing the petitioner to submit their reply to the show cause notices by appearing before Respondent No. 3 on 17.10.2025. This relief was granted subject to the petitioner paying a cost of ₹5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order dated 07.02.2025, passed by Respondent No. 3, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed ex-parte without providing the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the proceedings, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST Act and Rules? The petitioner argued that the show cause notices issued by Respondent No. 2 never reached them, thus denying them a proper opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority (Respondent No. 3). They contended that the impugned order was passed ex-parte based on a lack of participation, which was due to the non-receipt of the notices. The revenue, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, contended that the notices were sent through electronic mail and were therefore deemed to have been received by the petitioner. They argued that no further indulgence should be granted by the Court.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order, quashing the impugned adjudication order dated 07.02.2025 bearing No.CTO(AUD)ARS/GST ADJ- 1468/2024-25 passed by Respondent No.3 vide ANNEXURE – E; b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order, quashing the impugned summary order in Form GST DRC 07 dated 07.02.2025 bearing reference no.ZD2902250301930 passed by Respondent No.3 vide ANNEXURE – F; c) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard Sri Vijay Kumar A., learned counsel for Sri Bhojaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Jyoti M. Maradi, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
The petitioner is said to be engaged in the business of fertilizers and chemicals and is said to be discharging his tax liability regularly. The issue in the lis is with regard to certain HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37478 proceedings drawn by issuance of show cause notices by respondent No.2 dated 29.10.2024 and on 31.10.2024. The petitioner does not participate in the adjudication proceedings and respondent No.3 passes an order on 07.02.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is on a solitary submission that the order impugned is an exparte order as he had no opportunity to participate in the proceedings, since the show cause notices never reached the doors of the petitioner.
The learned High Court Government Pleader though would refute the submission contending that the notices were sent through electronic mail and therefore, they are deemed to have seen and submits that no further no indulgence should be shown at the hands of this Court.
In the light of the aforesaid circumstance of the factum of the exparte proceedings being drawn against the petitioner, which is vindicated on a perusal of the order impugned, I deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the concerned respondents and submit his reply. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed, albeit, in part. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37478
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed in part. b. The matter is remitted back to the hands of respondent No.3 with a direction to the petitioner to submit his reply to the show cause notices by appearing before respondent No.3 on 17.10.2025, subject to the cost of ₹5,000/- payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee. c. As a matter of form, the orders dated 07.02.2025, at Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’, stand quashed. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46
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.