M/S. Saggezza INDIA Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit) 5.13
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: SHRI. VISVANATHAN. N,
In this petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs: “WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:
a. Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records on the file of the Respondent 1 in the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 proceedings against Form GST DRC-07 bearing reference no. ZD2908240453644 dated 12.08.2024 [ANNEXURE – A], under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to pass DE NOVO order and pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
b. Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or more appropriate writ, declaring Notification No. 56/2023 – Central Tax dated 28.12.2023 [ANNEXURE – Q] as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and beyond the powers conferred under Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. NC: 2025:KHC:10592 c. Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Smt. Swati Panduranga, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.
A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to notice dated 09.05.2024 under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act/KGST Act 2017, the first respondent issued a pre- intimation notice dated 29.05.2024 under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/KGST Rules, 2017, to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 29.05.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that the petitioner. The Petitioner sought adjournment to reply to the said notice thrice and the respondent No.1 considering the same as three Opportunities given to the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 under Section NC: 2025:KHC:10592 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs. 15,67,29,537/- including the tax, interest and penalty.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had requested the respondent no.1 for adjourning the date for reply to the said notices and in addition the petitioner had also personally appeared before the respondent no.1 seeking for adjournment. The petitioner also submits that the respondent considering the said requests for adjournments as opportunity for hearing, proceeded to pass the impugned order. The petitioner also submits that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and submits that if one more opportunity is provided, by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would submit a reply to the show-cause notice and contest the proceedings.
Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that since the petitioner failed to reply to the pre- NC: 2025:KHC:10592 intimation notice and show-cause the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner’s inability and omission to contest the proceedings, is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.
Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice. NC: 2025:KHC:10592
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure- A is hereby set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 24.05.2025 at 2:30p.m. without awaiting further notice from the first respondent.
(v) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the first respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
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.