M/S Global Agencies vs. The Assistant Comercial Taxes (Audit)- 2.2
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,
The petitioner, a proprietorship concern is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash Order bearing No.ACCT(Audit)2.2/OR- 74(9)/23-24 dated 27.02.2024 (Annexure-C) and Endorsement bearing No.ACCT(A-2.2)/T/2024-25 dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure-D), whereunder the Order and Rectification Order are passed under Section 74(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'KGST/CGST Act, 2017) read with Rule 142 of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax/Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short 'KGST/CGST Rules, 2017) respectively.
Heard Sri. K.M.Shivayogiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri. V.Shivareddy for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.
Learned counsel Sri. Shivayogiswamy mainly contends that in pursuance to the show-cause notice issued under Section 74(1) of KGST/CGST Act, 2017, filed his NC: 2025:KHC:3168 objection and while passing order under Section 74(9) of KGST/CGST Act, 2017, the Competent Authority failed to consider the objection of the petitioner. Further, learned counsel referring to Section 75(4) of KGST/CGST Act, 2017, submits that the respondent failed to provide an opportunity to the petitioner. As the objections are not complied and the petitioner had no opportunity of hearing, learned counsel would pray for remanding the matter to the Competent Authority i.e., the respondent.
On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has filed statement of objection on behalf of the respondent. Paragraph No.12 of the statement of objection reads as follows:
"
It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted in this Writ Petition, that there was no suppression of facts, as the petitioner has declared the details of outward supplies of goods or services by furnishing GSTR-1 it is correct but the outward turnover along with taxes has not discharged within prescribed time limit which is mandatory under GST Act, 2017. However, since the respondent has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner by oversight & the adjudication order U/s 73 will be passed, if this Hon'ble NC: 2025:KHC:3168 Court remands matter directing consideration of Petitioner case as per section 75(2) of the GST Act, 2017."
The above portion of statement of objection makes it abundantly clear that the respondent while passing the impugned order, has failed to take note of the objections/reply filed by the petitioner. Since the respondent while passing order under Section 74(9) of KGST/CGST Act, 2017 has failed to consider the reply/objections filed by the petitioner, the matter needs to be remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Writ petition is allowed; (b) Order at Annexure-C bearing No.ACCT(Audit)2.2/OR-74(9)/23-24 dated 27.02.2024 and Endorsement at Annexure-D bearing No.ACCT(A-2.2)/T/2024-25 dated 19.12.2024 are quashed; (c) The matter is remanded to the respondent with a direction to consider and adjudicate the matter NC: 2025:KHC:3168 under Section 73 of KGST Act, 2017 in terms of Section 75(2) of KGST Act, 2017. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
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.