S.K. Basavaraj Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE WEST COMMISSIONERATE, BMTC BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 070.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.ARAVIND V.CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED EX-PARTY ORDER IN ORIGINAL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 13.09.2024 IN NO 110/2024-25 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:4638 WP No. 29515 of 2024

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Heard learned counsel Sri.R.Chandrashekar,

¶23

Sri.Kashinath Kalmath for Sri.Rama Murthy.R, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.Aravind V.Chavan, learned counsel for respondent.

¶24

Perused the entire writ papers.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit

¶26

that petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the ex-parte order in No.11/2024-25 dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure-A) passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017.

¶27

Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner received show cause notice and infact filed reply on 01.02.2021, but subsequently could not participate in the proceedings for personal hearing before respondentauthority, as the person who was looking after the matter

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4638 WP No. 29515 of 2024

¶29

before the respondent-authority died in May 2017. Since, the petitioner failed to appear for personal hearing, the matter was proceeded further and present impugned order is passed. Thus, he prays for an opportunity for personal hearing before the respondent-authority.

¶30

Learned counsel Sri.Akash V.T, appearing for respondent submits that the petitioner was given several opportunities as indicated in paragraph No.18 of the impugned order and the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunities provided to him, as such he cannot now contend that he had no opportunity for personal hearing. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶31

On perusal of the material placed on record, I am of the considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, petitioner ought to be provided an opportunity of personal hearing before the respondent-authority. The petitioner submits that he received show cause notice under Section 73 of 2017 Act and he had also filed objections, as could be seen from

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:4638 WP No. 29515 of 2024

¶34

paragraph No.16 of the impugned order. But the

¶35

submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner could not participate in the further proceedings due to the death of his employee who was looking after the matter before the respondent-authority has to be believed in the facts and circumstances. The substantial right of the petitioner is involved. Hence, it requires personal hearing of the petitioner. The impugned order is passed under Section 73(9) of the 2017 Act without personal hearing to the petitioner. In the above background, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37