M/S. Chetan Infra Projects vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner failed to respond to a show cause notice, leading to an ex parte adjudication order. The petitioner claims bona fide reasons for non-participation and seeks an opportunity to file a reply and demonstrate reconciliation between GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 returns.
Held
The Court quashed the ex parte adjudication order and restored the proceedings. The petitioner was directed to appear before the adjudicating authority and file a reply with necessary documents.
Key Issues
Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and present their case, despite an ex parte order being passed.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER NO.ACCT(A)- 4.1/DGSTO-4/DRC-07/07/2025-26 AND REFERENCE NO. ZD290725023142K DATED 07.07.2025 ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2; B) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF APPEAL NO.GST-AP.656/2025-26 REJECTED ORDER NO. ZD290126078163B DATED 06.01.2026-ANNEXURE-D, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1; C) IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PRAYER (A), ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO TAKE THE PETITIONERS APPEAL NO.GST- AP.656/2025-26 REJECTED ORDER NO. ZD290126078163B DATED 06.01.2026-ANNEXURE-D, ON RECORD AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON ITS MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING A HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29825 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The short question for consideration is: whether this Court must interfere with the adjudication order under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the 'KGST Act'] and the concurrent provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the 'CGST Act']. The adjudication order is dated 07.07.2025 [Annexure-B] and it is an ex parte order.
The adjudicating authority [the second respondent] is categorical in recording that the petitioner has not filed a response to the Show Cause Notice. Sri Halesha R.G., the learned counsel for the petitioner, while pleading bona fides for non-participation in the proceedings, asserts that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29825 petitioner's grievance would be redressed if it is extended an opportunity to file reply because the petitioner can demonstrate that there would be no reason for the proceedings on the ground that there is a mismatch between the returns filed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-7. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner can produce documents to demonstrate reconciliation between the two.
Sri K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard. This Court in the circumstances is of the view that the petitioner, without being entitled to raise a ground on the consolidated Show Cause Notice issued for two tax periods, must file a reply with documents in the light of the submissions now being made. In the light of the afore, the following ORDER The petition is allowed quashing the adjudication order dated 07.07.2025 [Annexure-B] and restoring the proceedings to the second respondent. The petitioner shall, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29825 without further notice, appear before the second respondent on 13.07.2026 and file a reply with all necessary documents. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
NV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 22
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.