Gopi Chand vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiremath accepts notice for respondents.
Heard learned counsel Sri.Sanyam Kshetrapal for Sri.Narendra A, learned counsel for the petitioner through video conference and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the writ petition papers.
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are before this Court, questioning the order at Annexure-C dated 29.07.2024, passed under Section 73 of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “2017 Act”) clubbing the financial years from 2019-20 to NC: 2025:KHC:2753 2023-24. Learned counsel would submit that respondents cannot issue a common show-cause notice clubbing more than one financial year and pass common order. He submits that in the instant case, show-cause notice as well as order passed under Section 73 of 2017 Act is in respect of financial years 2019-20 to 2023-24. Learned counsel also submits that in identical circumstances, a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.15810/2024 disposed of on 04.09.2024 has held that Section 73 of CGST Act mandates a specific time limit from the due date for furnishing the annual return for the financial year to which, tax due relates. The law stipulates that particular action must be completed within a designated year, and such actions should be executed in accordance with provisions. Hence, he prays for allowing the present writ petition.
Per contra, learned AGA Sri.Shivaprabhu Hiremath is not in a position to dispute the legal position. NC: 2025:KHC:2753
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is as to whether the impugned order requires interference at the hands of this Court?
Answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for following reasons:
Admittedly, Annexure-C order passed under Section 73 of 2017 Act is in respect of the financial years 2019-20 to 2023-24. By clubbing more than one financial year, the petitioner was issued with show-cause notice and the order is passed under Section 73 of 2017 Act which is impermissible. In terms of Section 73 of KGST Act, specific action must be completed within the relevant year since the limitation is prescribed. Hence, clubbing multiple assessment years is impermissible. This Court, in an identical fact situation in W.P.No.15810/2024 allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned show-cause notice, with liberty to the Authorities to issue separate show-cause notices for each assessment year in NC: 2025:KHC:2753 compliance of Section 73 of KGST Act and proceed further in the matter.
In the light of the above, the following order:
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.07.2024 bearing No.DCCT(A)-1-5/GST(Adj)-221/2024-25 (Annexure-C) for the financial years 2019-20 to 2023-24 passed under Section 73 of the KGST Act as well as Annexure-E bearing No.DCCT(A)/5/GST/DRC-13)-221/24-25 dated 04.11.2024 are quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents- Authorities to issue proper notices for each financial year in terms of Section 73 of the KGST Act and proceed further, in accordance with law. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
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.