M/S Mahaveer Medicals vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner's grievance is with the Adjudication Orders under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'the CGST /KGST Act'] relevant to the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20. The details of these Adjudication Orders are as follows.
Sl. No.
Orders
Date Financial year
Annexures 1 Order-in- Original 07.12.2023 2017-18 A 2 Order-in- Original 26.02.2024 2018-19 B 3 Order-in- Original 30.07.2024 2019-20 C
2 The Adjudication orders reads that the respective Show Cause Notices have been served on the petitioner over e-mail and also through registered post, but the petitioner's contention is that it was not served with such notices. The question for consideration is: whether this Court must interfere HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010321922026 NC: 2026:KHC:39420 WP No. 14876 of 2026
with the Adjudication Orders and restore the proceedings for reconsideration.
3 Mr. Bhanu Murthy J S, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting this Court's attention to the proceedings concluded by a Senior Officer relevant to the tax period 2018-19, submits that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and offered explanations which are accepted reducing the demand. The learned counsel emphasizes that if the petitioner was indeed served with the subject Show Cause Notices, the petitioner would have offered just explanation.
4 On merits, Mr. Bhanu Murthy J S submits that the petitioner can produce documents to explain the mismatch alleged in the returns between Forms GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. Mr. K. Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010321922026 NC: 2026:KHC:39420 WP No. 14876 of 2026
who accepts notice for the first and second respondents, is heard.
5 This Court opines that there is considerable force in the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that if indeed the Show Cause Notice was served, the petitioner's representative would have participated in these proceedings as it had participated in the proceedings initiated by a Senior Officer for the assessment year 2018-19, and this persuades this Court to restore the proceedings with liberty to the petitioner to file response to the Show Cause Notice within a reasonable time leaving open all questions to be considered based on the documents that the petitioner can produce.
6 At this stage, Mr. K. Hema Kumar submits that the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly after more than three years insofar as the assessment year 2017-18 and that this Court could HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010321922026 NC: 2026:KHC:39420 WP No. 14876 of 2026
consider the terms upon which the opportunity as aforesaid is being extended. In response, Mr. Bhanu Murthy J S submits that some portion of the demand is already recovered. The tabulation of the amount recovered from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Ledger and Credit Ledger as stated in the Memorandum of the Petition is examined and the petition stands disposed of by the following. ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part. [B] The impugned Adjudication Orders dated 07.12.2023 [Annexure - A], 26.02.2024 [Annexure - B] and 30.07.2024 [Annexure - C] are quashed restoring the proceedings for due consideration with liberty to the petitioner to file response along with reconciliation, if any and supporting HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010321922026 NC: 2026:KHC:39420 WP No. 14876 of 2026
documents respectively with the first and second respondents. [C] The petitioner shall file such response along with reconciliation if any/documents as aforesaid by 05.10.2026. [D] The recovery of the demand for the assessment year 2017-18 is made subject to the outcome of the restored proceedings. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
RB
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.