Sri Chidambaram Naidu Guduvari vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Facts
The petitioner, Sri Chidambaram Naidu Gudivari, challenged an order dated March 20, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru West GST Commissionerate. This order pertained to financial years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The petitioner contended that he had submitted a reply to the Show Cause Notice, acknowledged by the department on July 30, 2021. However, the impugned order erroneously stated that no reply was filed and no time was sought for filing one. The petitioner argued that the authority proceeded to decide the matter without considering his filed reply.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order at Annexure-A was contrary to the facts on record. The Court noted that the petitioner's reply at Annexure-E was duly acknowledged by the Department on July 30, 2021. The observation in paragraph 14 of the impugned order, stating that the noticee had neither submitted a reply nor sought time, was found to be factually incorrect. Consequently, the Court set aside the order at Annexure-A. The authority was directed to take note of the reply at Annexure-E and, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, dispose of the matter afresh. All contentions were kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated March 20, 2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru West GST Commissionerate, is vitiated by the authority's failure to consider the petitioner's reply to the Show Cause Notice, despite its acknowledgment. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles. He asserted that he had duly filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice, which was acknowledged by the respondent authority. The authority's observation that no reply was filed was factually incorrect and led to the decision being made without considering the petitioner's contentions. The petitioner relied on the acknowledgment of his reply as proof of submission. Respondent's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent.
Sections Cited
Finance Act, 1994
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:21974 WP No. 14426 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 14426 OF 2024 (T-RES) BETWEEN: SRI CHIDAMBARAM NAIDU GUDUVARI S/O LATE GUDUVARI KRISHNAMA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.105, BALAJI NAGAR SUBRAMANYAPURA POST UTTARAHALLI BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJEEV CHANNAPPA NULVI, ADV.) AND:
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU WEST GST COMMISSIONERATE 1ST FLOOR BMTC BUILDING BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 070. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JEEVAN J, NEERALAGI, ADV.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED 20/03/2024, BEARING CBIC DIN NO 20240357YU0000333C5B, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU WEST GST COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE ACT, 1994, VIDE ANNEXURE- A PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-16, 2016-17 AND 2017-18. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS D
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.