Siddappa Vs Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench, considered a writ petition filed by Sri Siddappa challenging two orders dated 22 December 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-440, Vijayapura. The respondent had issued a show-cause notice dated 29 September 2023, but the petitioner failed to submit a reply. Consequently, the respondent passed an ex parte assessment order under Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, confirming the total demand comprising tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned orders and an opportunity to contest the proceedings.
The petitioner submitted that bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause had prevented him from filing replies and supporting documents to the show-cause notice. He requested that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter restored to the stage of filing a reply. The State opposed the petition, contending that it lacked merit. After considering the submissions, the High Court adopted a justice-oriented approach and found it appropriate to provide one further opportunity to the petitioner. The Court did not determine the correctness of the underlying tax demand but directed reconsideration by the assessing authority in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition subject to payment of 10% of the tax demanded and set aside both orders dated 22 December 2023. The matter was remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration from the stage of the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice dated 29 September 2023. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 7 September 2026 without awaiting further notice and was permitted to submit replies and supporting documents. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing before proceeding in accordance with law. The Court expressly stipulated that failure to appear on the specified date would result in automatic recall of its order without any further judicial direction.
Case Details:
- Sri Siddappa Vs Assistant Commissioner (Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench); W.P. No. 204270/2025 (T-RES); 14/08/2026
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.12.2023 bearing NO. CTO/LGSTO-440/DRC-07/VJP/23-24/B-13525 passed by the Respondent produced at Annexure-A.
b. Issue a writ of such other order in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22/12/2023 bearing No. CTO/LGSTO-440/DRC-07/VJP/23-24/B-13525 passed by the Respondent produced at Annexure-B.
c. pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of material on record will indicate that the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 29.09.2023 to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not submit his reply to the said show-cause notice, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 22.12.2023 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand, including the tax, interest and penalty.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not submit replies/ documents to the show-cause notice dated 29.09.2023 and resultantly could not contest the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner having no option has approached this Court by way of the present petition 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.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. 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 he could not file its reply/ documents, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte
7. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his 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 22.12.2023 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 29.09.2023.8.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed subject to payment of 10% of the tax demanded.
(ii) The impugned orders, both dated 22.12.2023 passed by the respondent at Annexures-A and B are hereby set aside.
(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 29.09.2023.
(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 07.09.2026 without awaiting further notice from respondent.
(v) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the first respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.
(vi) In the event, the Petitioner does not appear before the respondent on 07.09.2026 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders.
