Mass Engineering Technologies Private Limited vs. The Superintendent Of Central Tax
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S N
The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A.
The case of the petitioner is that the proceedings are concluded ex-parte and the petitioner has material to demonstrate that the alleged discrepancy as noticed by the authority as regards the ITC available in GSTR-2A vis-à-vis returns in Form GSTR-3B does not exist. The petitioner further submits that though he did not reply to the show cause notice, there is no evidence on the portal regarding the availability of opportunity of personal hearing. Accordingly, it is submitted that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12934 Order-in-Original be set aside and the matter be remitted from the stage of reply to the show cause notice.
Perused the Order-in-Original. The authority has concluded the adjudication without the benefit of reply to the show cause notice. The authorities have recorded findings regarding the ineligibility of the petitioner to have claimed ITC, as the said invoices relied upon are not eligible for claim of ITC in terms of Section 16(2) of the CGST Act. The order that is passed without benefit of any reply to the show cause notice.
Taking note of the same, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the proceedings by taking stand on merits. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A is set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on 06.04.2026. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12934
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and all contentions are kept open. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS
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.