M/S. Sampath Refineries vs. The State Of Karnataka

Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order bearing File No.DGSTO-2/CTO(A)-2.4/GST. (ADJ)17- 18/D&R-57/2023-24/T No.2024-25. Order under Section 74(1) of the KGST Act, 2017 READ WITH SEC.74(9) & SEC.50(1)/50(3) OF THE ACT AND READ-WITH RULE 142 OF THE KGST RULES, 2017 AND CONCURRENT PROVISIONS OF THE CGST/IGST ACT,2017. Dated 31.01.2025. by THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, (AUDIT)-2.4, DGSTO-2, 1ST FLOOR, PIONEER PLAZA, NO.642, NEAR GOPALAN ARCADE MALL, KENCHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560098. Annexure-A.

Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case;

Grant costs and interest; and

Grant such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37314

It would suffice if the narration would commence from the issuance of the show cause notice on 14.02.2024 against the petitioner. The said show cause notice never reached the doors of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner did not submit his reply and in turn gets an order of demand from the hands of the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the notice was never served upon the petitioner nor there is any indication of any adjudication proceedings being taken up by the Adjudicating Officer.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner stands vindicated on perusal of the annexures appended to the petition.

Learned HCGP representing the State would vehemently refute the submission and contend that the notice was duly served upon the petitioner, but the petitioner has failed to furnish his reply and therefore, the Adjudicating Officer was left with no choice but to adjudicate the proceedings HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37314 ex-parte and pass the impugned order. Learned HCGP would seek to justify the action, but would admit the fact that the order nowhere indicates that the petitioner participated in the proceedings. Thus, the proceedings are ex-parte. But, she would submit that the cost should be imposed while remitting the matter back to the hands of the concerned authority to redo the matter afresh.

In the light of the said submission and admitted fact that the petitioner has no opportunity to participate in the proceedings in the light of the fact that there was no communication to the petitioner apart from what is narrated in the order, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the hands of the concerned authority i.e., respondent No.2 from the stage of issuance of show cause notice and submission of the reply from the hands of the petitioner within the timeline under the statute. The authority shall regulate its procedure thereon.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37314 ii) The impugned order dated 31.01.2025 at Annexure-A is hereby quashed.