M/S Midaz Technocraft vs. Joint Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(a) a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari for quashing the “Order under Section 107(11) of the KGST/CGST/IGST Act, 2017’, bearing No.GST/AP- 952/2024-25, dated 30.06.2025 issued by the Respondent – 1, as at ANNEXURE-A; and (b) a Writ of Certiorari or Order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the “Order-in-Original No.26/2024-25, dated 31.12.2024” bearing No.ACCT/LGSTO-75/BNG/ADJ-27/T: /2024-25, dated 31.12.2024, passed by the Respondent – 2, as at ANNEXURE-B; (c) Grant any other relief/s that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs, in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner by issuance of notice under Section 74 of the KGST Act, dated 11.06.2024, petitioner did not submit any reply, as a result of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44750 which respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order-in- original dated 31.12.2024 against the petitioner confirming the demand. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Authority i.e., respondent No.1 vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025. Aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the respondents, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 11.06.2024 issued by respondent No.2 and did not participate in the impugned proceedings. Under these circumstances, in the light of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that its inability and omission to submit reply and participate in the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, sufficient cause and unavoidable circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexures-A and B and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44750 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 30.06.2025 passed by respondent No.1 and the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 31.12.2024 passed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed. (iii) The amount deposited by the petitioner i.e., 10% of the tax amount, before the Appellate Authority would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings. (iv) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh from the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the show-cause notice dated 11.06.2024, in accordance with law. (v) The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 03.12.2025 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2, failing which the present order shall stand recalled automatically. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44750 (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents etc., before respondent No.2, who shall consider the same, provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further, in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
BMC: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19
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.