M/S Wipro Ge Healthcare Private Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: “a. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.07.2025 along with the Form GST APL-04 No. ZD2908250074183 issued on 02.08.2025, issued by Respondent No.1 for the relevant period, annexed at Annexure-A as being issued without any legal basis and in violation of the principles of natural justice;
b. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Order-in-Original bearing File No. ADCOM/ENF/SZ/CTO-11/AP-05-2017-18 dated 30.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.2 for the relevant period annexed at Annexure-B;
c. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus holding that clerical mistakes and procedural irregularities cannot be a ground to deny a substantive benefit;
d. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus holding that the Petitioner has rightly availed a refund of accumulated ITC on account of export of goods without payment of IGST;
e. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus holding that the Petitioner has not short declared RCM tax liability on inward supplies in GSTR-3B filed for the month of July 2017 nor has availed excess CGST ITC; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36082 f. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus holding that the Petitioner have not short- declared output tax liability in their GSTR-3B filed for the month of July 2017 during the relevant period;
g. To issue order(s), directions, writ(s) or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice.”
Heard Sri.Prashanth Sabarish Shivadass, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Hemakumar K., learned AGA appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.
The petitioner files his return in the month of July for the Financial year 2017-18. This becomes the subject matter of the present proceedings and the concerned respondent issues a notice on 12.05.2022 alleging short declaration of tax liability on invert supplies in their GST returns furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner then is said to have submitted a detailed reply by filing an appeal. The Appellate Authority though receives all the documents, it has a statutory bar to remit the matter back to the hands of the original authority to consider the issue. Therefore, the Appellate HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36082 Authority passes an order which is impugned in the subject petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that once the GST regime springs in on 1.7.2017, the beacon points to that legislation were yet to be cleared or the teething problems that the legislation brought about was still at large. In those circumstances, the petitioner had filled in the forms erroneously and had allegedly not declared tax liability that was to be done in a particular form for the Assessment Year 2017-18. This is noticed by the respondents in the year 2022 and a show cause notice is issued on 13.09.2023, proceedings are taken further. All the deficiencies the learned counsel would submit, had been placed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority though was satisfied with the documents that were placed since they were not placed before the original authority, it had to be rejected. It is therefore the learned counsel submits that the matter should be remitted back to the hands of the original authority and an opportunity to that effect be granted to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36082 petitioner to produce all documents that are placed now before the Appellate Authority.
Learned AGA would submit that there is no bar for the Appellate Authority to look into the documents that are produced, the bar is only that sending it back to the original authority. The Appellate Authority has himself looked into it and passed the impugned order. Therefore, no quarrel can be found.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.
Prima facie, the submission of the petitioner would merit acceptance as the teething problems of GST loomed large at the time when the regime came into force on 1.7.2017 and the filling up of applications under the GST was indeed cumbersome when it springed in. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36082
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also rightly contended that there was no option to edit when the GST regime came about and the petitioner was not able to edit or correct the tax liability that was projected in the form that was initially made. This is noticed four years later in the year 2022 for the assessment year 2017-18 and the proceedings have sprung.
The petitioner appears before the Appellate Authority, produces all the documents to the satisfaction of the Appellate Authority. This is an admitted fact but the original authority had to assess the documents and pass necessary orders, that power the Appellate Authority does not have, in the light of sub-section (11) of section 107, which only permits him to dismiss the appeal or allow the appeal, not remit the matter back to the original authority.
In that light, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner merit acceptance that the matter should be remitted back to the hands of the original authority to consider all the documents that are now placed before the Appellate HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36082 Authority to be placed before the original authority. The original authority shall then assess the claim of the petitioner and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R [i] Writ Petition is allowed in part. [ii] Order-in-Appeal dated 30.07.2025 along with the Form GST APL-04 No. ZD2908250074183 issued on 02.08.2025, issued by Respondent No.1 for the relevant period, annexed at Annexure-A, stands quashed. [iii] Order-in-Original bearing File No.ADCOM/ENF/SZ/CTO- 11/AP-05-2017-18 dated 30.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.2 for the relevant period annexed at Annexure-B, stands quashed. [iv] Matter is remitted back to the hands of respondent No.2 to consider the documents in justification of the issue and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law and it is open to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36082 original authority to regulate its procedure and take the proceedings to its logical conclusion. [v] Petitioner shall appear before the original authority with all the necessary documents and answer the allegation on 24.09.2025 at 2.30 p.m. [vi] The original authority shall answer the defense of the petitioner on its merit and not hinge upon limitation to reject the claim. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
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.