M/S. Audio Zone vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: SHRI. S. LOHITH KUMAR,
Sri. K. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1 and 5. Learned counsel Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi accepts notice for respondents No.2 to 4. 2. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the order of adjudication passed under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax / Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 3. It is submitted that the notices were uploaded in the portal of additional tab and not in the regular tab, as HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15034 a result of which petitioner missed taking note of the notices stated to have been issued. It is further submitted that the matter relates to reconciliation between GSTR-3B and the declaration of supplier in GSTR-2A and the petitioner has material to demonstrate and reconcile the discrepancy noticed.
Sri. K. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the order is passed on 23.08.2024 and the petitioner has slept over the matter.
However, having noticed that the order passed is an ex-parte order in the absence of any reply by the petitioner to the show-cause notice and taking note of the assertion of the petitioner that they have material to demonstrate the reconciliation between GSTR-3B and declaration of the supplier in GSTR-2A, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order of adjudication and remit the matter to the stage of reply to HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15034 show-cause notice, taking note that the authority did not have the benefit of reply on merits of show-cause notice.
Accordingly, the order at Annexures-A and A1 are set aside. Matter is remitted to the stage of reply to show-cause notice. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 16.04.2026. In light of setting aside of the impugned order of adjudication, respondent No.1 is directed to rescind the bank attachment forthwith.
In light of remanding of the matter for fresh consideration, there is no occasion to enter into the correctness of the notification as assailed in prayer (iv). The petitioner is put on terms and directed to pay 10% of the tax demand. Needless to state, the tax directed to be paid is subject to outcome of the adjudication.
I.A.No.1/2026 is allowed and the petitioner is dispensed with production of certified copy of Annexures- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15034 A, A1, B, B1 and G, in light of the submission that the documents produced are printouts taken from the portal. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR
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.