M/S Saipriya Bangalore Agencies PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('KGST Act' for short), Section 73 read with Section 6 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act' for short) and Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition and summary of the order dated 29.12.2023 passed by respondent no.1 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition and subsequent recovery notice dated 29.06.2024 issued by respondent no.1 vide Annexure-F to the writ petition, the present writ petition is filed.

Petitioner is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the CGST Act and KGST Act. A notice was issued to the petitioner, regarding discrepancy in the returns and alleging that there has been non- payment of GST, by way of E-mail, which the petitioner had provided to the authorities concerned. As the NC: 2024:KHC:43248 petitioner did not reply to the said E-mail, the impugned order dated 29.12.2023 (vide Annexure-D to the writ petition) has been passed by respondent no.1 and the notice in Form GST DRC-13 is issued to the banker of the petitioner attaching the account of the petitioner.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is not utilizing the said E-mail ID and for that reason, she was unaware of issuance of the notice and further submits that if an opportunity is given, she will appear before respondent no.1 and provide all the necessary documents to show that she has paid the necessary GST and she is not in default.

It is the responsibility of the petitioner to keep a valid E-mail ID for communication purposes. If she changes the E-mail ID, she is required to update the same in the GST portal. Admittedly, the petitioner had not done it at the time of issuance of the said notice. No fault can be found with the authorities concerned in passing the impugned order pursuant to the issuance of the recovery notice. NC: 2024:KHC:43248

However, taking into consideration that the petitioner did not have an opportunity of participating in the proceedings, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met, if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings by setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-D and summary of the order at Annexure-E and consequently, the recovery notice at Annexure-F to the writ petition subject to imposing cost on the petitioner and remanding the matter back to respondent no.