Sri Vinayaka Rock Crystals vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.2
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash impugned Adjudication Orders bearing Nos.DCCT (AUDIT)-5.2/GST/T.No…./2024- 25 dated 27.02.2025 [Annexure-A] and No…. DCCT (AUDIT)-502/gst/T.No…../2025-26 dated 30.06.2025 [ANNEXURE – B] passed by the First Respondent.
(b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any such other appropriate writ / s to quash Recovery Notice bearing GST DRC-13 bearing No.DCCT (AUDIT)-5.2/GSTADT/T…./2025-26 dated 18.07.2025 [ANNEXURE – C].
(c) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37108
Heard Sri Pradyumna Hejib, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Jyoti M. Maradi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in the case is squarely covered by the order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.8391/2025, disposed on 21.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for respondents – revenue would not dispute the position of law.
The order passed in W.P.No.8391/2025, reads as follows:
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 27.06.2024, respondent issued Show Cause Notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 to the petitioner, who filed his replies to the same on 07.01.2025. 3. It is contended that when the Show Cause Notice was issued, the issue in controversy involved in the present petition relatable to the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority Vs. Steel Authority – (2024) 21 Centax 378 (S.C.) at Annexure-H and Mineral Area Development Authority Vs. Steel Authority of India – (2024) 21 Centax 313 (S.C.) at Annexure-J, which were ultimately disposed of vide orders dated 25.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 respectively, despite which the respondent did not consider the same while passing the impugned order HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37108 dated 16.01.2025, which is assailed in the present petition
A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 at Annexure-A, will indicate that though Show Cause Notice was issued when the matters were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgments at Annexures-H and J dated 25.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 respectively have not been considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order.
Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order-in- original dated 16.01.2025 and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.”
In the light of the afore-quoted order and facts obtaining the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, the impugned order requires to be obliterated and direct respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned adjudication orders dated 27.02.2025 and 30.06.2025, respectively, passed by respondent No.1, are hereby set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37108 iii) The matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh to the hands of respondent No.1 after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.
Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 122
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.