M/S Emmanuel Constructions Private LTD vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes - Karnataka High Court, 11 June 2025

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19858 WP No. 5014 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5014 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S EMMANUEL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LTD., NO.7 2ND FLOR 5TH CRSS AUTIN TOWN BEHIND SBI BENGALURU -560 047 [A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGD. UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND REPRESENTED BY SRI. STEVEN FREDRICK LOBO DGM [ACCOUNTS AND ADMN.] AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH B. NARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y C SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES [AUDIT] - 4.8, DGSTO-4 CABIN NO.608, 6TH FLOOR BMTC COMPLEX KORMANAGALA BENGALURU -560 095 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JYOTI M.M., HCGP) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19858 WP No. 5014 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED

ORDER OF ADJUDICATION NO. DCCT (AUDIT)-4.8/ADJ- ..../2024-25, DATED 06-08-2024, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT, AS AT ANNEXUE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PETITIONER SO AS TO ENABLE IT TO APPEAR BEFORE HER/HIM AND PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BASED ON WHICH A CONSIDERED ORDER COULD BE PASSED ON MERITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the Order of Adjudication dated 06.08.2024 under Section 73(9) read with the other provisions of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order relates to the tax period between April 2019 - March 2020. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19858 Mr. Harish Narasappa, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned order on two scores viz., (i) lack of due opportunity, and (ii) failure to justify the reasons for demand resulting in the reasons for adjudication. Ms. Jyoti M. M., the learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that the petitioner cannot deny lack of opportunity because, apart from the Show Cause Notice being uploaded on the portal and sent to the petitioner's Email-ID, the notice of personal hearing have been served but the petitioner has not availed this opportunity.

Ms. Jyoti M. M. further submits that this Court must consider the petitioner's grievance about lack of due opportunity in the light of the fact that the petitioner has filed an appeal as against the impugned order, but it has chosen to withdraw the same to prosecute the present petition. Crucially, the learned High Court Government Pleader cannot rebut HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19858 the contention that the adjudication is without reasons.

The respondent, in the Order of Adjudication, after recording observations on the details as found in GSTR-3B and GSTR-1, has opined that the conclusion is as per the observations, but the respondent has not assigned reasons to vindicate those observations. This Court opines that this approach violates the fundamental that every adjudicatory process must be concluded by a reasoned order. As such, there must be interference, and this Court also must take note of the fact that the petitioner could be adventurous in having chosen to call in question the impugned order of adjudication in appeal only to withdraw the same to prosecute this petition. This Court must observe that this introduces an element of adventurism and there must be appropriate orders in this regard. In the light of the afore, the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19858 ORDER a. The petition is allowed. b. The impugned Order of Adjudication dated 06.08.2024 [Annexure - A] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 07.07.2025. c. The petitioner shall deposit a cost of Rs.10,000/- with the respondent on such date. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE