Apj Broadband Services vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) The petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of adjudication dated 11.12.2023 and 05.04.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Acts, pertaining to the assessment periods 2017-18 and 2018-19 in the case of the petitioner (Annexures – “C” and “D”). (ii) The petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Second respondent rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioner as being filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act (Annexures – “E” and “F”). (iii) In the alternative, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to remand the matter to the first respondent and restore the proceedings to the stage of the show cause notice for passing fresh orders after affording an opportunity to file a reply and of being heard to the petitioner and taking note of the circulars issued by the GST Council from time to time. (iv) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue such other writ or directions in the nature of a writ as this Hon’ble Court NC: 2025:KHC:17199 deems it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents having issued Show Cause Notices at Annexures – A and B dated 12.07.2023 and 19.12.2023, petitioner did not submit any reply to the same. In this context, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that since Show Cause Notices were served upon the auditor’s e-mail I.D. and that the said auditor did not intimate the same to the petitioner, as a result of which, petitioner could not submit any reply to the said Show Cause Notices and the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned ex-parte orders, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition, which was also not within the knowledge of the petitioner.
It is the contention of the petitioner that immediately upon come to know about the aforesaid ex-parte adjudication orders, petitioner filed an appeal on 29.03.2025, which was dismissed as barred by limitation having been filed beyond period NC: 2025:KHC:17199 of four months from the date of the order. It is submitted that the impugned adjudication orders are to be set aside and matter remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned HCGP submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit reply to the Show Cause Notices, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte adjudication orders. However, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that since Show Cause Notices were served upon the auditor’s e-mail I.D. and that the said auditor did not intimate the same to the petitioner, petitioner could not submit any reply to the said Show Cause Notices, which was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, by adopting justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. NC: 2025:KHC:17199
In so far as the impugned orders at Annexures – E and F dated 29.03.2025 is concerned, since the appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay, the said orders of dismissal of the appeal as barred by delay would not constitute merger of the order with the orders of Appellate Authority and consequently, the orders of the Appellate Authority will not come in the way of this Court exercising its juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and setting aside the adjudication order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, the following:
ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders at Annexures – C and D dated 11.12.2023 and 05.04.2024, respectively, passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. NC: 2025:KHC:17199 (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit its reply, documents etc., before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 75
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.