M/S Pathways Marketing And Consulting Group vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: SMT. RAMALPREET KAUR
Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order of adjudication at Annexure-A1 for the year 2020-21 as well as the order of adjudication at Annexure- B1 for the year 2021-22. 2. Various contentions have been raised while challenging the orders.
Insofar as Annexure-A1 is concerned, it is submitted that the order passed is an ex-parte order and the Authority has completed adjudication on the premise that there was discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR- 2A. It is the case of the petitioner that if an opportunity is granted, the petitioner would demonstrate that no such discrepancy exists.
Perused the order of the adjudication at Annexure-A1. The authority has completed the adjudication, noticing the discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The order also observes that despite HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18100 sufficient opportunity granted, the taxpayer has not made out his reply.
Taking note that the order passed is an ex parte order and the stand of the petitioner that he has material to demonstrate that the discrepancy as pointed out does not exist, it would be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-A1. 6. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A1 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.
Petitioner is put on terms and directed to pay 10% of the tax demand, insofar as the proceedings at Annexure-A1 is concerned. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 04.05.2026. All contentions are kept open
Insofar as the adjudication order at Annexure- B1 for the year 2021-22 is concerned, petitioner submits HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18100 that the order passed is an ex-parte order without the benefit of any reply on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner submits that there are several grounds to assail the validity of the proceedings and further submits that there has been violation of principles of natural justice insofar as notice prior to audit is less than the time stipulated under Section 65(3) of the CGST Act. Certain other contentions have been raised as well.
Perused the order at Annexure-B1. Noticing that the order passed is an ex-parte order without the benefit of any reply to the show cause notice and noticing the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of the procedure before conducting audit, it would be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-B1. 10. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-B1 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18100
Petitioner is put on terms and directed to pay 10% of the tax demand, insofar as the proceedings at Annexure-B1 is concerned. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 without further notice on 04.05.2026. All contentions are kept open.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP
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.