M/S Microtrol Sterilisation Services PVT LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner contended that they did not receive pre-intimation or show cause notices, leading to ex-parte proceedings and an order-in-original. They only became aware of the proceedings when their bank account was sought to be blocked.
Held
The Court found that the proceedings were ex-parte due to non-service of notices. To provide an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Key Issues
Whether the ex-parte proceedings and the resulting order were vitiated by non-service of statutory notices. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to present their case.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1), Section 73(5), Section 79(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI. MURTHY RANGANATH
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: "Wherefore, the petitioner prays this Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs: (A) Issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus or writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus, or any other writ or order or direction calling for the records relating to Order- in-Original No. ACCT/LGSTO-27/2AVS3B/2023-24 dt. 12.03.2024 issued by the Respondent No.1, enclosed as Annexure A and quash the same, along with consequential relief and pass any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and equity. (B) Issue a writ of certiorari or mandamus or writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus, or any other writ or direction or order to quash the impugned summary of the order in Form DRC-07 dated 15.03.2024 with ref no. ZD290324038030U issued by the Respondent no.1, enclosed as Annexure A1. (C) Quash, as far as the Petitioner is concerned by an appropriate writ or order in the nature of Certiorari or otherwise, the impugned notice in Form DRC-13 dated 17.02.2025 issued by Respondent no. 1 under Section 79(1)(c) of CGST Act, 2017 to the Respondent No. 2 vide NC: 2025:KHC:15719 T-NO. 249/2024-25 and enclosed in Annexure B; And D) Grant such other consequential reliefs as this Honourable High Court may think fit including refund of amounts paid, if any, and the cost of this writ petition."
A perusal of the material on record would indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioner that neither the pre- intimation under Section 73(5) of the KGST Act dated 28.11.2023 nor the show cause notice under Section 73(1) dated 08.12.2023 was served upon the petitioner, who did not participate in the proceedings nor submitted his reply, which culminated ultimately in the impugned order-in-original dated 12.03.2024, which is assailed in the present petition.
It is submitted that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and he came to know about the same only when he received the notice dated 10.03.2025 from HDFC Bank - respondent No.2 about the notice dated 17.02.2025 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 - Bank to block the bank account of the petitioner. It is submitted that if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law, the petitioner would NC: 2025:KHC:15719 submit reply to the show cause notice and contest the proceedings in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned AGA submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner where exparte proceedings and the petitioner having not given his reply either to the pre-intimation or to the show cause notice, the petitioner remained exparte during the course of proceedings, which culminated in the impugned exparte adjudication order. Under these circumstances, in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, pass the following: ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders at Annexures-A, A1 and B are hereby set aside. NC: 2025:KHC:15719 (iii) The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh to the stage of the petitioner submitting reply to the show cause notice dated 08.12.2023 and to proceed further in accordance with law.
(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit the reply, pleadings, documents etc. to respondent No.1 who shall consider the same and provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.
(v) The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.1 on 12.05.2025 without awaiting further notice.
(vi) It is made clear that, in the event the petitioner does not appear before respondent No.1 on 12.05.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled and the present petition stands revived without reference to the Bench. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
*bgn/- CT:VS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15
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.