M/S Nirmithi Kendra Bengaluru Rural District vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner's grievance is with the third respondent's Orders dated 01.08.2025 and 20.02.2026 [Annexures - A and B]. The third respondent by the first impugned order dated 01.08.2025 has dismissed the petitioner's appeal for non-appearance recording that the petitioner has submitted, on 25.07.2025, only a written explanation with no supporting documents. The third respondent has also recorded in this impugned order dated 01.08.2025 that the petitioner has not availed the opportunity of personal hearing despite being extended with three opportunities.
However, the petitioner has requested for an adjournment for the 2nd week of August, 2025. The petitioner has later filed an application for rectification under Section 161 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, the HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010448782026 NC: 2026:KHC:36132 KGST Act’], and reiterating the afore, the third respondent has dismissed this application.
The question for consideration is whether the third respondent could have dismissed the petitioner's appeal other than on merits. Mr. Cherian Punnoose, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard in the light of the provisions of Section 107(11) and 107(12) of the KGST Act. These provisions read as under.
"107(11) The Appellate Authority shall, after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against but shall not refer the case back to the adjudicating authority that passed the said decision or order: HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010448782026 NC: 2026:KHC:36132 107(12) The order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision."
light of the Apex Court's decision under the 1 2023 SCC Online Pat 10506 HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010448782026 NC: 2026:KHC:36132 provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and the expanse of juri iction of the appellate Tribunal under the Rules therefor and the provisions are stated holding thus,
"
The specific statutory mandate is that after hearing the appellant, the appellate authority is to make further enquiry, if found necessary and pass such orders as it thinks just and proper, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against. Such affirmation, modification or annulment shall not be an empty formality nor can it be mechanical, without the consideration of the grounds of appeal. We observe so, specifically when the appellate authority is empowered to refuse the prayer for adjournment made by an appellant, if on three prior occasions, such adjournment has been allowed, in which case also the appellate authority cannot absolve itself from the obligation to conduct such further enquiry as is mandated under sub-section (11) of section 107. Sub-section (12), it has to be further emphasized, also requires the order of the appellate authority disposing of the appeal to be in writing and specifically stating the points for HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010448782026 NC: 2026:KHC:36132 determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. When an appeal is dismissed for reason only of absence of the appellant or lack of effective prosecution, then the Tribunal should be found to have abdicated its powers and not followed the statutory mandate.”
This Court is in respectful agreement with this conclusion and opines that the third respondent should have decided the appeal on merits, framing the points for consideration and reasoned its decision based on the material available on record. In the present case, the petitioner has filed a written explanation furnishing the details in the reply, and that should have been considered in view of the points that would arise for consideration, and the third respondent should have passed a reasoned order thereafter. As such, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part. HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010448782026 NC: 2026:KHC:36132 [B] The impugned Orders dated 01.08.2025 and 20.02.2026 [Annexures - A and B] by the third respondent are set aside and the appeal is restored for reconsideration directing the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority on 12.10.2026 leaving open all questions for consideration. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
RB, AN
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.