M/S.Crum Teogether vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Lgsto-091

Held

The Court allowed the petition in part. It quashed the Adjudication Order and its summary, both dated 11.12.2025, thereby restoring the proceedings to the stage of the petitioner filing a reply to the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 10.06.2025. The Court reasoned that given the petitioner's explanation regarding the non-assistance by its Chartered Accountant and its unfamiliarity with the GST proceedings, another opportunity was warranted. The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents by 26.10.2026 and, by the same date, deposit 10% of the tax covered under the Adjudication Order, subject to the outcome of the restored proceedings. The first respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's reply and documents and decide on the affirmation of the proposition in the Show Cause Notice with cogent reasons. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Crum Teogether, a restaurant operator, filed a writ petition challenging an Adjudication Order dated 11.12.2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-091, Bangalore. This order was passed under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act for the period 2021-22. The proceedings were initiated due to a mismatch between Forms GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. The petitioner did not respond to the intimation in DRC-01A dated 15.05.2025 or the show cause notice in DRC-01 dated 10.06.2025. The petitioner claims its Chartered Accountant failed to assist it in filing a timely response, and that the mismatch was due to delayed returns from suppliers. The petitioner sought an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file a response to the show cause notice dated 10.06.2025, considering the circumstances presented, and if so, what relief should be granted? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST/KGST Act). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that its Chartered Accountant did not assist it in filing a timely response, and that the petitioner, being unfamiliar with the GST proceedings, could not file a timely response. The petitioner also contended that the mismatch in returns was attributable to delayed filings by its suppliers, and that it could reconcile these differences and demonstrate the relevance of transactions to its GSTR-3B declarations. The petitioner sought restoration of proceedings to allow it to file a response. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue or state. However, it notes that the intimation was delivered to the registered e-mail and the show cause notice was uploaded on the portal, implying the revenue's position that proper procedure was followed.