M/S Kaishin Metalex Stainless Steel Private Limited vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Adjudication Order dated 24.08.2023 and the summary of such order in Form DRC-07 [Annexures – A and B]. The Adjudication order is for the period between July 2017 to March 2018. This Adjudication Order is premised in the assertion that the Show Cause Notice is issued to the petitioner, but it has filed no response.
2 Sri Anish P Bhojani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings are concluded because of a mismatch between Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and that the petitioner could not respond to either the Intimation in Form GST DRC-01A or to the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01. The learned counsel invites this Court’s attention to the following averment in the memorandum of petition. HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010841822025 NC: 2026:KHC:37604 WP No. 39794 of 2025
“10. It is further submitted that, being unfamiliar with the operation of the sophisticated GST portal, the petitioner entity was entirely dependent upon its appointed GST consultant for statutory filings, assessments, representation before the GST authorities, and advice on all GST-related matters. To the Petitioner's shock and dismay, it was subsequently discovered that there was a complete deficiency in the services rendered, inasmuch as the consultant failed to represent the Petitioner before the authorities, did not make timely or appropriate submissions, although had continuously assured the Petitioner that all compliances were in order and that any intimation, audit, or proceedings would be duly handled.”
3 Sri Anish P Bhojani also submits that the Board Circulars dated 27.12.2022 and 17.07.2023 are issued covering the subject tax period which envisage an opportunity to a Registered Taxable HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010841822025 NC: 2026:KHC:37604 WP No. 39794 of 2025
Person [RTP] to produce documents to establish the genuineness of the transactions even if those are not declared by the supplier.
4 Smt. Jyoti M Maradi, a learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent, is heard for the disposal of the petition to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to another reasonable opportunity. The respondent has referred to the Intimation dated 24.05.2023 and the Show Cause Notice dated 01.07.2023 observing that the petitioner has not responded to these notices but without further details of the opportunity so extended.
5 The petitioner contends that the mismatch between Forms GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B can be explained with the support of the documents, and certificates as permissible in terms of the Board Circulars. The circumstances asserted by the petitioner and the terms of the Circular persuade this HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010841822025 NC: 2026:KHC:37604 WP No. 39794 of 2025
Court to opine that the petitioner must have another opportunity, and hence, the following
ORDER
The petition is allowed and the Adjudication Order dated 24.08.2023 and the summary of such order in Form DRC-07 [Annexures – A and B] are quashed subject to the following terms.
[a] The proceedings are restored to the respondent for due consideration subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax in demand by 05.10.2026 subject to the outcome in the restored proceedings.
[b] The petitioner is permitted to file, along with the certified copy of this Order, its response and the HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010841822025 NC: 2026:KHC:37604 WP No. 39794 of 2025
copies of the documents to show genuineness of the transactions.
[c] The petitioner shall produce these documents by 05.10.2026 and the respondent shall consider these documents and then conclude the proceedings by a reasoned order. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
NV
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.