Mbb Labs Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, MBB Labs Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 and a summary thereof in Form GST DRC-07, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 1). These orders pertained to the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner contended that Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order without considering the petitioner's reply submitted on 09.12.2024 to a Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.11.2024, and without providing an opportunity for personal hearing. The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit.
Held
The Court allowed the petition. It held that the material on record indicated that Respondent No. 1 had passed the impugned order without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. The Court adopted a justice-oriented approach and deemed it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 1 for reconsideration afresh, from the stage of the petitioner submitting its reply to the show-cause notice. The Court directed that the petitioner be provided with an opportunity of personal hearing in accordance with law. The petitioner undertook to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 19.05.2025 without awaiting a notice, with a condition that failure to appear would automatically revoke the order and revive the petition. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to re-submit its reply along with any additional documents or pleadings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025, issued by Respondent No. 1, is liable to be quashed for non-consideration of the petitioner's reply and absence of a personal hearing, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the GST law? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 1 failed to consider its reply dated 09.12.2024 to the show-cause notice (Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.11.2024) and did not grant an opportunity for personal hearing before passing the Order-in-Original. The petitioner sought an opportunity to contest the proceedings by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter for reconsideration. Revenue's contention: The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents submitted that there is no merit in the petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Form GST DRC-01, Form GST DRC-07
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order to call for the records relating to the impugned Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 along-with summary thereof in FORM GST DRC- 07 bearing Reference No.ACCT/LGSTO-36/DRC-07/2024- 25 dated 25.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.1 herein for the period from April 2020 to March 2021 (Annexure-‘A’) and quash the same; (b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order to call for the records relating to the Impugned Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.11.2024 bearing Reference No.ACCT/LGSTO-36/DRC- 01/EXPORTS/2024-25 issued by Respondent No.1 herein for the period from April 2020 to March 2021 (Annexure-‘B’) and quash the same; and / or (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction as deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon’ble Court.”bn
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent and perused the material on record. NC: 2025:KHC:18003
A perusal of material on record will indicate that the respondent issued a Form GST DRC-01 dated 28.11.2024 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply/response to the same on 09.12.2024. Subsequently, respondent No.1 proceeded to pass the impugned Order in Original dated 25.02.2025 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, which is assailed in the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order. So also respondent No.1 has not provided any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that if one more opportunity is provided for personal hearing to the petitioner, by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would contest the proceedings and the respondents may be directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. NC: 2025:KHC:18003
Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the material on record will indicate that the respondent no.1 without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to pass the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and set aside the impugned order by remitting the matter back for reconsideration afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned Order-in-Original at Annexure-A dated 25.02.2025 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show- cause notice at Annexure-B dated 28.11.2024. NC: 2025:KHC:18003 (iv) Petitioner undertakes to appear before respondent No.1 on 19.05.2025 without awaiting for notice from respondent No.1. (v) It is made clear that in the event the petitioner does not appear before respondent No.1 on 19.05.2025, the present order shall stand automatically revoked and present petition shall revive, without any further orders and without any reference to the Bench.
(vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to re-submit reply to the impugned show-cause notice at Annexure-B dated 28.11.2024 along with documents / additional documents, additional pleadings, etc., which shall be considered by respondent No.1, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29
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.