M/S Ashok Kumar Baweja vs. The Asistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order of Adjudication dated 08.01.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 under Section 73[9] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'the CGST Act'] read with Sections 6 and 50 of the CGST Act. The first respondent, in passing the impugned order, has observed that the petitioner has not discharged the tax liability, has failed to submit valid documents and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18775 that it is also served with the Show Cause Notice as required under Rule 142[1][a] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 [for short, 'the CGST Rules'].
Sri Sandeep Huilgol, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has not been issued with Notice under Section 73[1] of the CGST Act read with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, but only a summary of the Show Cause Notice is uploaded on the respondents' portal. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner, who is aged seventy years, could not have known that the notice is issued, and as such, the statutory requirement of due notice is violated.
On merits, Sri Sandeep Huilgol submits that the petitioner has indeed submitted a Letter of Undertaking with the CGST Authorities, and the first respondent has not considered the same simply observing that the petitioner has not submitted valid HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18775 documents. Further, the learned counsel, without contest from the other side, underscores that if the Letter of Undertaking is indeed furnished, the petitioner, who has exported aeronautical goods/ services, cannot be taxed.
In consideration of these submissions, and upon hearing Ms. Jyothi M M, the learned High Court Government Pleader, for the first and second respondents, this Court is of the considered view that this Court must interfere with the impugned Order of Adjudication dated 08.01.2025 [Annexure-A] and the consequential Order [Annexure-A1] and restore the proceedings to the first respondent for due consideration reserving liberty to the petitioner to file with the first respondent once again the copies of the relevant Letter of Undertaking directing the first respondent to consider the same and pass just orders. These directions would be essential to ensure HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18775 that the decision on the liability is in the light of all the relevant material.
At this stage, Sri Sandeep Huilgol submits that 10% of the amount consequent to the impugned Demand is also deposited, and that because this Court is persuaded to remand the matter for reconsideration, the respondents may be directed to keep this amount in deposit subject to the outcome of the remand. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part quashing the impugned Order of Adjudication dated 08.01.2025 and the Summary of such order [Annexures – A & A1] restoring the proceedings to the first respondent. [b] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to furnish copies of the relevant Letter of Undertaking with the first HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18775 respondent within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner avails such remedy and files the copies of the Letter of Undertaking, the first respondent will be at liberty to act under law. [c] The respondents are directed to keep 10% of the amount deposited by the petitioner in a Fixed Deposit subject to the first respondent’s decision. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
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.