M/S Eris Oaknet Healthcare Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned Adjudication Notice dated 31.01.2023 under Section 73(1) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142(1)(a) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 [Annexure-F] and the subsequent Adjudication Order under Section 73(9) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 142(1)(a) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 dated 19.04.2023 [Annexure-K] issued by the respondent and for other reliefs.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
The material on record discloses that on 31.01.2023, the respondent issued Adjudication Notice in Form DRC-01 to the petitioner. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted its representation dated NC: 2024:KHC:2006
2023 [Annexure-G] requesting the respondent to furnish list of invoices for blocked credit to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent sent Excel Worksheet by E- mail to the petitioner, who submitted one more representation dated 30.03.2023 [Annexure-J] to the respondent requesting time up to 15.04.2023 so as to enable the petitioner to locate invoices on which input tax credit was availed.
It is the grievance of the petitioner that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it was not possible for the petitioner to collect and collate all relevant documents and submit the reply to the respondent. It is contended that the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.04.2023 in violation of principles of natural justice, and without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. It is contended that the respondent erred in calculating the period prior to 31.01.2023 when the Adjudication Notice for the purpose of recording an NC: 2024:KHC:2006 erroneous finding that there was delay of 768 days which is contrary to the material on record.
Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.
As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, though the respondent had issued audit notice on 07.01.2021, the impugned proceedings command only on Adjudication Notice dated 31.01.2023 when the Adjudication Notice was issued to which, the petitioner expressed his inability to submit his reply on the ground that certain documents were not available and requested for extension of time. Under these circumstances, the respondent clearly fell in error in coming to the incorrect
conclusion that there was a long lapse of 768 days in the petitioner submitting his reply to the audit notice, which was not the subject matter of the adjudication proceedings under the notice dated 31.01.2023 issued by the NC: 2024:KHC:2006 respondent. In other words, in the light of the undisputed fact that the respondent had issued Adjudication Notice only on 31.01.2023 to which the petitioner submitted its reply and also requested for an opportunity and an opportunity of personal hearing, it can not be said that there was a delay of 768 days on the part of petitioner in submitting its reply by incorrectly computing/reckoning the period prior to issuance of the Adjudication Notice dated 31.01.2023 since the impugned order was passed subsequently on 19.04.2023. 7. Under these circumstances, it is clear that sufficient and reasonable opportunity has not been provided to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, in view of the submission of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would appear before the respondent and submit its reply, documents etc., I deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. NC: 2024:KHC:2006
In the result, the following: ORDER a The petition is hereby partly allowed. b The impugned Adjudication Order dated 19.04.2023 [Annexure-K] is hereby set aside. c The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. d The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 26.02.2024 on which date, the petitioner shall submit its reply/response, documents etc., before the respondent. e The respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioner and provide it an opportunity of personal hearing and pass NC: 2024:KHC:2006 appropriate orders in accordance with law. f It is further relevant to state that the respondent having already sent/issued the Excel Worksheet to the petitioner, the submission that the learned High Court Government Pleader that no further records/documents are available with them, is placed on record and the question of providing the same to the petitioner for the purpose of submitting a reply will not arise in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. JUDGE
CR, RB
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.