Shri Mohan R vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax

WP/12128/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01025518202525 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR7 pages

For Petitioner: SRI LOCHANA S BABU, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioners, former partners of a dissolved firm M/s Sujatha Super Stores, challenged a show cause notice dated 07.11.2022 issued by Respondent No. 2, an Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 1, and a subsequent notice dated 04.04.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1. The petitioners contended that the show cause notice was addressed to the erstwhile firm, which had been dissolved in April 2022, prior to the notice's issuance. Consequently, they did not receive the notice, could not submit a reply, and the proceedings culminated in an ex-parte adjudication. They argued that these proceedings were without jurisdiction and unconstitutional as they were initiated against a dissolved firm. The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. It quashed the impugned notice dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure-A) and the Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure-B). The matter was remitted to Respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration from the stage of the petitioners submitting a reply to the show cause notice dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure-C). The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to submit their reply, pleadings, and documents to the show cause notice. Respondent No. 1 was directed to provide a sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and proceed in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that all rival contentions, including the alleged dissolution of the partnership firm, were kept open and no opinion was expressed on their merits. The petitioners were directed to appear before Respondent No. 1 on 19th May 2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication proceedings initiated against a dissolved firm, whose GST registration was also cancelled, are devoid of jurisdiction and unconstitutional, particularly when the show cause notice was not received by the erstwhile partners due to the firm's dissolution? (Question of law turning on the principles of natural justice and corporate/partnership law in the context of GST). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that since the firm M/s Sujatha Super Stores was dissolved in April 2022, prior to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 07.11.2022, the notice was invalid. They claimed they did not receive the notice, preventing them from submitting a reply. Therefore, the subsequent ex-parte adjudication and consequential notices were without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. They relied on the principle that proceedings cannot be validly initiated against a non-existent entity. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that there was no merit in the petition and it was liable to be dismissed.

Sections Cited

Section 74(9), Section 74(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17126 WP No. 12128 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.12128 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI MOHAN R S/O SHRI LATE H.M. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 46, 11TH CROSS, SIDDARATHA NAGARA, SIDDARATHA NEGARA POST, MYSURU – 570 011 2. SHRI G. NAGARAJ S/O SHRI GUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.256, 7TH MAIN, ALANAHALLI LAYOUT, MYSORE -570 011 BOTH PETITIONERS ARE FORMER PARTNERS IN M/S SUJATHA SUPER STORES (SINCE DISSOLVED) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI LOCHANA S BABU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX SIDDHARTHA NAGAR DIVISION S1 AND S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR MYSURU -570 011. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17126 WP No. 12128 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AUDIT COMMISSIONERATE, AUDIT CIRCLE-2, MYSURU 2ND FLOOR, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU-570 011 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX MYSURU AUDIT GROUP -23, 2ND FLOOR, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU-570 011 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 04.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, FOR BEING WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: NC: 2025:KHC:17126 “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 04.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1, for being without the authority of law(Annexure-A). (ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing Order-In- Original(OIO) No.MYS-EXCUS-000-SIDDHARTHANAGAR- AC-DK-9/2-24-25 dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Sec. 74(9), for being without the authority of law(Annexure –B). (iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing Show Cause Notice No.34/2022-23/Circle-2/Group-3/MysAudit dated 07.11.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 under Sec.74(1), for being without the authority of law (Annexure-C). (iv) Declare that the adjudication proceedings initiated or re-initiated, conducted and concluded against a firm which stood dissolved in law and whose registration under the GST Acts, also cancelled are wholly devoid of juri iction and unconstitutional. (v) Declare that the Respondent No.1 and 2 are not the proper officers to issue notice or consequent order for lack of juri iction and authority. (vi) Restrain the respondents from initiating or pursuing any proceeding for recovery of the demand foisted on the dissolved firm against the petitioners herein or their legal representatives; and (vii) To issue Order(s), Directions, Writ(s) or any other relief, holding that the actions of the Respondents are illegal and award a cost appropriate as this Hon’ble court NC: 2025:KHC:17126 deems it fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned show cause notice at Annexure-C dated 07.11.2022 in order to point out that the same has been addressed to the erstwhile partner M/s Sujatha Super Store, No.834, Vinaya Marga, 2nd Stage, Siddartha Nagara, Mysuru-570 011, in order to contend that the petitioners were the erstwhile partners of the aforesaid firm which stood dissolved during April 2022, prior to issuance of the show cause notice at Annexure-C.

It is submitted that despite the aforesaid firm of which petitioners and others were the partners having been dissolved and not in existence prior to issuance of the show cause notice which was issued to the place of business of the firm and as such, petitioners did not receive the show cause notice and did NC: 2025:KHC:17126 not submit the reply to the same and consequently, proceedings culminated in the impugned ex-parte adjudication at Annexure-B dated 22.08.2024 followed by the notice at Annexure-A dated 04.04.2025 which is assailed in the present petition.

It is submitted that since the petitioners did not receive the aforesaid show cause notice and could not submit the reply to the same along with documents due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, impugned Order deserves to be set-aside and the matter remitted to the stage of petitioners submitting reply to the show cause notice at Annexure-C and put forth all contentions which is directed to be considered by the respondents, in accordance with law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed.

A perusal of the impugned Order at Annexure-B dated 22.08.2024 will clearly indicate that the respondent records the finding that aforesaid firm did not submit any reply to the show NC: 2025:KHC:17126 cause notice and culminated in the impugned ex-parte adjudication of the matter.

In the light of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that inability to submit the reply along with documents was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, to provide one more opportunity to the petitioners to put forth all contentions before the respondents, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it appropriate to set-aside the Order at Annexure-B dated 22.08.2024 and Annexure-A dated 04.04.2025 and remit the matter to the respondent No.1 to consider afresh in accordance with law, by leaving all contentions open.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned notice dated 04.04.2025 at Annexure-A and the Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024 at Annexure-B are hereby quashed. NC: 2025:KHC:17126 (iii) The matter is remitted to the respondent No.1 for consideration afresh from the stage of petitioners submitting reply to the show cause notice at Annexure-C dated 07.11.2022. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners to submit the reply, pleadings and documents to the aforesaid show-cause notice at Annexure-C dated 07.11.2022, pursuant to which, respondent No.1 shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.

(v) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including alleged dissolution of the partnership firm are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

(vi) Petitioners are directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 19th May 2025, without awaiting further notice from respondent No.1. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

kcm List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

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.