Partly allowed

R.S. Rock Sand v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2023WP/16086/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Assistant Commissioner's adjudication order under Section 73 of the GST Act for failing to consider documents and explanations submitted by the petitioner's representative during the hearing, restoring the proceedings for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 19.04.2023 is quashed. Proceedings restored to the respondent with liberty to the petitioner to file documents within three weeks.

R.S. Rock Sand Vs the Assistant Commissioner of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42668 WP No. 16086 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16086 OF 2023 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

R.S. ROCK SAND ( A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI RAJAKONDA RAJESH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O SHRI RATAKONDA SREEDHAR, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 482, 9TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, INDIRA NAGAR BENGALURU-560008.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA G.H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-046 NO. 174, 1ST STAGE, INDIRANGAR BENGALURU-560038.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING FORM GST DRC-07 BEARING NO. ACCT/LGSTO-46/ ADJ-CR-107-2/2023-24 DTD 19.04.2023 (ANNX-A).

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:42668 WP No. 16086 of 2023

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has impugned the respondent’s Order of Adjudication dated 19.04.2023 [ Annexure-A ] and this relates to the tax period between July 2017 and March 2018. The respondent, by the impugned order, has confirmed the terms of the Show Cause Notice dated 17.03.2023 finding that the petitioner will be liable to pay tax levied under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax/the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘ CGST/KGST, 2017 ] as also interest and penalty. Sri. Pradyumna G.H., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. Shamanth Naik, the learned High Court Government Pleader, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, are heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶22

The petitioner is issued with the

¶23

intimation in FORM GST DRC-01A on 01.02.2023

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:42668 WP No. 16086 of 2023

¶26

and thereafter, the petitioner is issued with the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 17.03.2023, and the respondent has closed the proceedings by the impugned order recording that the petitioner has not furnished satisfactory reply nor discharged tax and other liabilities despite being provided with sufficient and reasonable opportunities.

¶27

Sri. Pradyumna G.H. submits that the

¶28

petitioner, as of December 2016, has filed returns declaring that it would be entitled to Input Tax Credit [ITC] under the previous regime and when the Show Cause Notice dated 17.03.2023 was issued, the petitioner’s representative appeared before the respondent and furnished copies of the invoices stating that the petitioner could not have claimed ITC as of the specified date as the capital goods were not utilized, and explaining that if the previous regime had continued and the petitioner had utilized the capital goods within the time allowed in law, the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:42668 WP No. 16086 of 2023

¶31

petitioner could have availed the credit.

¶32

Sri. Pradyumna G.H canvasses that this aspect has not been considered.

¶33

Sri. Shamanth Naik is unable to

¶34

controvert that the petitioner’s representative had appeared before the respondent pursuant to the Show Cause Notice and has offered certain explanation producing certain documents that have not been considered. Hence, there must be interference on the limited ground quashing the Order of Adjudication dated 19.04.2023 and restoring the proceedings to the respondent for continuation with opportunity to the petitioner to file response in writing with necessary documents along with a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be at liberty, to avoid further consequences that would entail, to file such documents within three [3] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:42668 WP No. 16086 of 2023

¶37

The petition stands disposed of in terms of

¶38

the above.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

R.S. Rock Sand v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.S. Rock Sand v. the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri H K Pattabhiraman (Huf) Vs M/S Pariwar Housing Corporation

M/S Capital Construction Co. Vs Union of India

M/S Capital Construction Co. Vs Union of India

Mr Sharanesh K S N Vs M/S Ryan Foods LLP

Madhu Bagroy Vs Adarsh Palm Retreat Gulmohar Residents Apartments Welfare Association

M/S Sai Surya Distributors Vs M/S Pepe Jeans Innerfashion Private Limited