Shri Amoghasiddeshwar Civil and Engineering Works Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court, in Shri Amoghasiddeshwar Civil and Engineering Works Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, considered a writ petition challenging a GST assessment order dated 27 September 2024 concerning the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner, engaged in executing works contracts for State Government departments and other employers, had received an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A demanding tax, interest and penalty. Although the petitioner submitted replies during the proceedings, the adjudicating authority passed the disputed order. Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause had prevented it from producing all relevant documents before the adjudicating authority. Relying on the earlier decision in Sri Siddappa Vs Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner requested that the matter be remanded for reconsideration.
The Revenue initially opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. However, the Additional Government Advocate acknowledged that an appeal might no longer be maintainable because of the delay and agreed that reconsideration would be appropriate given the petitioner’s inability to produce sufficient material earlier. After considering the submissions and the precedent cited, the High Court held that the matter deserved fresh examination on its merits, with sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to present its case.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the assessment order dated 27 September 2024, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority from the stage of submission of the petitioner’s reply and documents. The petitioner was directed to submit its reply and supporting documents within one month of receiving the order and appear before the respondent on 15 October 2026 without awaiting further notice. The authority was directed to consider the material, provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and proceed in accordance with law. Importantly, the Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to appear on the specified date, the original assessment order would automatically stand revived without further orders.
Cases Discussed
1. Sri Siddappa Vs Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka High Court); W.P. No. 204270/2025; 14/08/2026: The petitioner relied on this decision to seek remand of the GST proceedings because relevant documents could not be produced before the adjudicating authority. The High Court considered the reasons assigned in that decision while granting conditional relief and directing fresh consideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 27/09/2024 bearing No.DCCT(A)-1/VJP/GST-DRC-07/2024-25/B-799 passed by the Respondent produced ANNEXURE D.
ii) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. The petitioner is engaged in the execution of works contracts and undertakes such contracts from various departments of the State Government as well as from other employers. The respondent issued an intimation under Form No.DRC-01A of the Goods and Services Act, 2017 (‘GST Act, 2017’ for short), calling upon the petitioner to pay tax, interest and penalty for the tax period 2020-21. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said intimation. Thereafter, the respondent issued show-cause notice in Form No.DRC-01A of the GST Act, 2017 dated 18.05.2024. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice and thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 came to be passed.
3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, due to bona-fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not produce all the relevant documents before the adjudicating authority, though a reply to the show-cause notice was submitted. Hence, learned counsel seeks to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority in view of the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of SRI. SIDDAPPA Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER in W.P.No.204270/2025 disposed of on 14.08.2026.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner is required to file an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. However, he fairly submits that, now the appeal may not be maintainable in view of the delay and in view of the specific contention that the petitioner could not place the sufficient materials before the adjudicating authority, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
5. Having considered the rival submissions and taking note of the grounds urged in the writ petition, as well as the reasons assigned in the case of SRI. SIDDAPPA referred to supra, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the respondent – authority with a direction to reconsider the petitioner’s case on merits, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the respondent, is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded under the impugned order.
iii) The matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, from the stage of submission of the petitioner’s reply and documents. The petitioner shall file reply and relevant documents within one(1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 15.10.2026, without awaiting further notice.
v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file such further reply and documents as may be necessary. The respondent shall consider the same, provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hear the petitioner, and thereafter proceed further, in accordance with law.
vi) In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the respondent on 15.10.2026, as stated supra, the impugned order shall stand revived automatically, without further orders.
