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
DATED 20.03.2023 PASSED UNDER SECTION 73(9) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017 IS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A1 AND ETC. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6394 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order of adjudication at Annexure-A1 for the financial year 2018-
Petitioner has also challenged the order of adjudication at Annexure-B1 for the financial year 2019-2020. The consequential orders and proceedings have also been challenged.
It is the case of the petitioner that the order at Annexure-A1 as well as the order at Annexure-B1 are ex- parte orders and the petitioner could not participate in the proceedings nor make out reply to the show-cause notice. It is submitted that the petitioner was not aware of such proceedings and the petitioner subsequently came to know of the proceedings on the basis of telephone call from the department. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6394
Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the notice has been served as per procedure and the lapse is solely attributable to the petitioner.
Taking note that the orders of adjudication are admittedly passed without reference to any reply of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to set aside the orders of adjudication at Annexures-A1 and B1 and remit the matter to the stage of reply to the show cause notices at Annexures-A3 and B3. 5. Accordingly the orders at Annexures-A1 and B1 are set aside. Consequential summary of the orders at Annexures-A2 and B2 are also set aside. Petitioner to make out reply to the show cause notices at Annexures-A3 and B3 for the respective tax periods. All contentions on merits are kept open. Petitioner to appear before respondent No. 1 without further notice on 04.03.2026. Needless to state, if the petitioner does not avail of such opportunity, they would be disentitled of the indulgence HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6394 granted by the court. Petitioner to pay cost of Rs.10,000 to the High Court Legal Services Committee.
In light of the above, the 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.