Slv Structures Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

SLV STRUCTURES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. G.K, RAJAGOPAL NAIDU SON OF MR. KRISHNAM NAIDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 043.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER LGSTO-055 DGSTO-5, BDA COMPLEX KALYANA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043. (BY SRI. HEMA KUMAR.K, AGA)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING NO. ACCT/LGSTO-55/2024-25 DTD 26.07.2024 (ANNX-A) PASSED AND ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44488 WP No. 20859 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶24

“ (a) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ quashing impugned Adjudication Order bearing No.ACCT/LGSTO-55/2024-25 dated: 26.07.2024 [ Annexure-A] passed and issued by the Respondent; (b) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶26

AGA for the respondent and perused the material on record.

¶27

A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to notice in Form GST ASMT-01 dated 29.02.2024 the respondent issued an intimation notice under Form GST DRC-01A dated 03.04.2024 to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 07.05.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that petitioner has claimed excess input tax credit. Since the petitioner did not submit its reply to the said show-cause notice also, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.34,44,170/including the tax, interest and penalty.

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:44488 WP No. 20859 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said notices were uploaded under the tab ‘Additional Notices / Orders’ in the common GST Portal and hence, the said notices went unnoticed by the petitioner and hence, it couldn't submit replies / documents to neither the pre-intimation notice nor the show-cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly couldn’t contest the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner having no option has approached this Court by way of the present petition interalia contending that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the preintimation notice and show-cause notice and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and submits that if one more opportunity is provided, by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would submit a reply to the show-cause notice and contest the proceedings.

¶32

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits

¶33

that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:44488 WP No. 20859 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, the counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner did not file its reply/ documents, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.

¶38

Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that its inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2024 and remitting the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice dated 07.05.2024.

¶39

In the result, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶42

(ii) The impugned order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the respondent under 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – A is hereby set aside.

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:44488 WP No. 20859 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting its reply to the notice dated 07.05.2024 issued under section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – B

¶47

(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 02.12.2025 without awaiting further notice from the respondent.

¶48

(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear it and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶49

(vi) In the event, the petitioner does not appear before the respondent on 02.12.2025 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders.

¶50

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶51

SV

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36

Slv Structures v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Slv Structures v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manjula Vs the Commissioner

M/S Bowring Service Station Vs the Commercial Tax Officer (ENFORCEMENT-56)

Sri Arun Kumar Mahapatra Vs Karnataka State Open University

R. Nataraju Vs Chikkarangamma

Ranjith Kumar R Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S MD Hr Services Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka