M/S Vivan Solution vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Vivan Solution, represented by its proprietor Smt. Richa Kumari, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petitioner sought to quash an ex-parte order of adjudication and a summary of the order, both issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner contended that she was unable to file a reply to the show cause notice due to hospitalization for IVF treatment during the relevant period. The impugned orders were passed without considering her response. The Court perused the material on record and the petitioner's assertion regarding her hospitalization.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's assertion regarding her hospitalization for IVF treatment and subsequent delivery of a child, which prevented her from submitting a reply to the show cause notice, was sufficient to warrant interference. Adopting a justice-oriented approach, the Court found it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned ex-parte adjudication order and the summary of the order. The matter was remitted back to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 2) for fresh consideration. The Court directed Respondent No. 2 to afford the petitioner a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing before proceeding in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 2 on 21.10.2024. The ratio decidendi is that a party unable to respond to a show cause notice due to a documented medical emergency should be granted an opportunity to present their case, and ex-parte orders passed in such circumstances may be set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the ex-parte order of adjudication and the summary of the order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner could not file a reply due to hospitalization for IVF treatment. The petitioner argued that her inability to respond to the show cause notice was due to a medical emergency (IVF treatment and subsequent delivery), which prevented her from contesting the proceedings. She contended that this prevented a fair adjudication and therefore, the ex-parte orders should be set aside. The revenue did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER OF ADJUDICATION VIDE REFERENCE NO.ACCT/LGSTO16/DRC-07/2023.24 DATED 28.03.2024(ANNEXURE-A) PASSED AND SUMMARY OF THE ORDER ISSUED IN FORM-GST-DRC-07 VIDE REFERENCE NO.ZD290424010263R DATED 04.04.2024(ANNEXURE-B) BY THE R2 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, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ or order in the nature of Certiorari to quash exparte order of adjudication vide reference No.ACCT/LGSTO-16/DRC-07/2023-24 dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure-A) passed and summary of NC: 2024:KHC:39823 the order issued in FORM-GST-DRC-07 vide reference No.ZD290424010263R dated 04.04.2024 (Annexure-B) by the 2nd respondent; and (ii) Issue any other Writ, Order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record would indicate that it is the specify contention of the petitioner that she could not issue reply to the show cause notice since she was hospitalized for IVF treatment during the relevant period and as such, the impugned exparte order deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law. NC: 2024:KHC:39823
In this context, it is relevant to state that the pleadings and the documents of the petitioner and the specific assertion as regards her hospitalisation and delivery of a child after the impugned order, is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in a position to submit her reply / response along with documents to the show cause notice and contest the proceedings. Accordingly, adopting the justice oriented approach, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and adjudication order, Annexure-A and summary of the order, Annexure-B and remit the matter back to the respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned adjudication order and summary order at Annexures-A & B are hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for re-consideration afresh. (iv) The respondent No.2 is directed to re-consider the matter afresh after affording sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. NC: 2024:KHC:39823 (v) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 21.10.2024. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48
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.