Huggi Revana Siddappa Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

HUGGI REVANA SIDDAPPA S/O. HUGGI BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, CIVIL CONTRACTOR, KADARANAYAKANAHALLI POST, KADARANAYAKANAHALLI, HRIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE – 577 601.

¶11

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMA MURTHY R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT-5), VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE – 577 601.

¶14

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

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. HEMA KUMAR K., AGA)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIODS 2019-20 DATED 19/08/2024 (ANNX-C) U/S 73(9) OF CGST / KGST ACT BEARING NO. ACCT/AUDIT-5/DVO/T- /2024-25.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:54072 WP No. 36431 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶25

i. The Petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash the order passed by the Respondent for the periods 201920 dated 19-08-2024 (Annexure-"C") u/s.73(9) of CGST/KGST Act. bearing ND'ACCT/Audit-5/ DVO/T/2024-25.

¶26

ii. This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue such other writ or writs or directions in the nature of a writ as this Hon'ble High Court may deem it fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the petitioner's case.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶28

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner filed its Return of Turnovers for tax periods 2019-20. The Respondent initiated proceedings u/s. 73 of the Act CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and issued a show-cause notice dated 30.05.2024 calling for explanation with regard to some discrepancies in tax liability. The petitioner filed its reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. Pursuant to the same, the respondent without considering

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54072 WP No. 36431 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

the reply filed by the petitioner and not providing the petitioner with sufficient opportunity of personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the act proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure - C dated 19.08.2024, which is assailed in the present petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed its reply to the show-cause notice and the respondent without considering the said reply and without granting an opportunity of personal hearing has passed the impugned order at Annexure - C dated 19.08.2024 and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice/ produce necessary documents and thereafter to pass appropriate orders.

¶33

Per contra, learned AGA for respondent would support the impugned orders and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed, especially when the petitioner did not exercise his due diligence in participating in the impugned proceedings.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:54072 WP No. 36431 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

A perusal of the material on record including the impugned orders will indicate that it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner filed its reply to the show-cause notice and the impugned orders have been passed without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to produce necessary documents. Under these circumstances, in view of the respondent failing to provide an opportunity for the petitioner to provide a reasonable opportunity to produce necessary documents by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions by imposing cost of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.

¶38

7. In the result, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The Writ Petition is allowed, subject to payment

¶41

of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:54072 WP No. 36431 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ii) The impugned order passed by respondent at Annexure - C dated 19.08.2024, is hereby set aside;

¶46

iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 02.02.2026, on which date, he shall submit his reply to the show cause notice along with relevant documents without awaiting further notice from respondent.

¶47

iv) Upon the petitioner submitting a reply along with relevant documents to the show cause notice, on 02.02.2026, the respondent shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear him and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶48

v) The 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 them and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54072 WP No. 36431 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

vi) In the event, the Petitioner does not appear before the respondent on 02.02.2026 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders.

¶52

SD/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶53

MDS

¶54

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Huggi Revana Siddappa v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Huggi Revana Siddappa v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

Sri C Ananda Kumar Vs the Executive Engineer

Smt. Malathi Lemilal Suvarna Vs the Income Tax Officer

Ms. Velliyamma Vs Mr. B S Sunil

Aepl Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Priyanka Gandhi School of Nursing Vs Karnataka State Diploma in Nursing Examination Board

Dr Syed Ahmed Memorial Charitable Trust Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax