P.V. Kadam and Sons Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, in P.V. Kadam and Sons Vs Commercial Tax Officer, held that a GST appellate authority must comply with the statutory requirement of passing a reasoned order specifying the points for determination, its decisions and the reasons supporting those decisions. The petitioner, a civil contractor, challenged an appellate order dated 23 December 2025 dismissing its appeal for non-appearance. The underlying dispute concerned a demand of Rs.4,90,858/- for the period April 2018 to March 2019, arising from adjudication proceedings under the GST statutory framework. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belagavi, dismissed the appeal after recording that the petitioner had not attended the hearings or responded to the opportunities provided. Although the appellate authority stated that it had examined the grounds of appeal, available documents and information on the departmental portal, it found no reason to interfere with the original order. The petitioner argued that dismissal for non-appearance denied the opportunity of hearing guaranteed by the principles of natural justice and relied upon earlier Karnataka High Court decisions in Bondada Engineering Limited and Anand Alluminium Works, in which similar appellate dismissals had been set aside and the matters remanded.
The High Court examined Sections 107(11) and 107(12) of the KGST Act, 2017, particularly the obligation to pass a written appellate order containing the points for determination, the decision on those points and the reasons for the decision. It found that these statutory requirements were lacking in the impugned appellate order. The Court further observed that a statutory appeal constitutes a substantive remedy available to the taxpayer on questions of fact and law, and denial of that statutory remedy amounts to denial of a substantial right. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate order dated 23 December 2025 and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was directed to appear before the appellate authority on 26 October 2026, and the authority was requested to dispose of the appeal within two months from the first appearance. All rival contentions were expressly left open. The High Court did not determine the validity of the underlying tax demand. The original adjudication concerns the period 2018-19, although the final direction of the judgment refers to 2017-18.
Cases Discussed
1. Bondada Engineering Limited Vs Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Others (Karnataka High Court) — W.P. No. 26900 of 2024; 20/03/2025. The Court relied upon the principle that dismissal of a statutory GST appeal for non-prosecution may warrant interference to provide another opportunity for adjudication on merits. The earlier appellate order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration.
2. M/s. Anand Alluminium Works Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and Others (Karnataka High Court) — W.P. No. 104589 of 2026; 25/09/2026; NC: 2026:KHC-D:16827 not applicable to this cited decision. The Court quoted this decision extensively concerning the mandatory requirements of Sections 107(11) and 107(12) of the KGST Act, 2017, and the obligation to provide reasonable opportunity before disposing of a statutory appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
This Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
(i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. in Appeal No.APL/GST-341/2023-24/B-1440, dated 23/12/2025 for the tax period 2018-19, passed by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-B, to this petition.
(ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus or like in the nature of directing respondent No.2 to pass the order on merits of the case.
(iii) Pass such other Order or further Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Heard, Sri.H.R.Kambiyavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sharad V.Magadum, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Girish Hulmani, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
3. The lis involved in this matter is in a narrow compass. It is the case of the petitioner that, the original authority passed an order demanding a sum of Rs.4,90,858/- for the Assessment Year April-2018 to March-2019, by means of adjudication order under Sections 73(8), 73(9), 50 of the CGST/ KGST/ IGST Act, 2017 R/w Rule 142(1) of the CGST/ KGST/ IGST Rules, 2017. The same was the subject matter before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belagavi Division, Belagavi in Appeal No.GST-341/2023-24/B-1440 under Section 107(11) of the KGST Act, 2017. The appellant failed to appear before the appellate authority to advance its arguments. Recording the same, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal for non-appearance. The order passed by the appellate authority reads as follows:
“Herein also, the Appellant has neither appeared nor has given any response to the opportunities given for being heard. In view of the above discussion, the Appeal becomes liable to be dismissed for non-appearance.
Further, inspite, of the non-appearance of the Appellant, the contentions in the Grounds of Appeal were perused. The contentions of the Appellant were verified with the documents available, the information available in the department portal etc. On verification of the said documents & information; and in the absence of evidence submitted by the Appellant, this office found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Respondent.
Hence, the Appeal stands Dismissed.”
4. Sri.H.R.Kambiyavar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, dismissal of appeal for non-appearance amounts to denial of audi alteram partem. The first appeal is the statutory appeal provided to urge the substantial right granted under the Statute. He further submits that this Court, in catena of Judgments, set-aside the order and remanded the matter by providing opportunity to the persons placed similarly to that of the petitioner and placed reliance on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of BONDADA ENGINEERING LIMITED VS. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND OTHERS1. He further relied on the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s.ANAND ALLUMINIUM WORKS VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND OTHERS2, wherein this Court, considering the similarity in the case to that of the Writ Petition in BONDADA ENGINEERING LIMITED supra, allowed in the Writ Petition, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remanded the matter. The relevant paragraphs of the said order, read as under:
“5. Learned counsel Sri H.R.Kambiyavar, submits that dismissal for non-appearance amounts to denial of audi alteram partem. A principle enshrined under the doctrine of principles of natural justice. He further submits that this Court, in the catena of judgments set aside the order and remanded the matter by providing opportunity to the persons placed similarly that of the petitioner. One such identical matter considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is in W.P.No.26900 of 2024 disposed of on 20.03.2025 in the case of Bondada Engineering Limited v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax and others. This Court allowed in the petition afore, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remanded the matter. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
“4. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 19.04.2023 will indicate that respondent No.2-Appellate Authority has proceeded to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Though respondent No.2-Appellate Authority has assigned various other reasons for dismissing the appeal, having regard to the fact that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, it would be necessary to adopt a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant/petitioner to prosecute the appeal on merits, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-F dated 19.04.2023 and remit the matter back to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration afresh in accordance with law. 5. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed in part;
(ii) Order-in-appeal at Annexure-F dated 19.04.2023 is set aside; the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2-Appellate Authority for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law;
(iii) Petitioner to appear before respondent No.2-Appellate Authority on 21.04.2025 without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2.
(iv) All rival contentions of the parties are left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions.”
6. A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority clearly shows that the appellant has not appeared before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal on the available records, documents available in the portal and in the absence of evidence submitted by the appellant, stated that no reason is found to interfere with the impugned order passed by the original authority and dismissed the appeal. As per Section 107(12) of the KGST Act, 2017, the appellate authority is required to follow the procedure contemplated in the said provision. Section 107(12) of the KGST Act, 2017 reads as under:
“Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-
(12)The order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision.”
7. The same is lacking in the order impugned herein that apart the appeal is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner both on facts and law and denial of statutory right amounts to denial of substantial right of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court proceedings to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 31.03.2026 passed in Appeal No.GST-533/2023-24 is set aside.
(iii) Matter stands remanded to the appellate authority to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make out his case and decide the matter strictly adhering to Section 107(11) and (12) of the KGST Act, 2017 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
(iv) Since the parties are before this Court, the petitioner shall appear before the concerned appellate authority on 12.10.2026 and make his submission on the merits of the case and appellate authority to consider the same strictly in adherence to Section 107(11) and (12) of the KGST Act, 2017.
(v) The appellate authority is requested to dispose of the matter considering the Tax period 2017-2018 and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of first appearance.
(vi) All rival contentions are left open.”
5. As stated above, sub-Section (12) of 107 of the KGST Act, 2017 states that, the order of the Appellate Authority disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. The same is lacking in the order impugned herein. That apart, the appeal is a statutory remedy available to the petitioner, both on facts & law and denial of statutory right amounts to denial of substantial right of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Court proceedings to pass the following:
ORDER
(1) The Writ Petition is allowed and remanded.
(2) The impugned order dated 23.12.2025 passed in Appeal No.GST-341/2023-24/B-1440 vide Annexure-B, is set aside.
(3) The matter stands remanded to the Appellate Authority to provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make out its case and decide the matter strictly adhering to Sections 107(11) and (12) of the KGST Act, 2017 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
(4) Since the parties are before this Court, the petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 26.10.2026 and make its submission on the merits of the case and the Appellate Authority to consider the same strictly adhering to Sections 107(11) and (12) of the KGST Act, 2017.
(5) Considering the Tax period i.e., 2017-18, the Appellate Authority is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, within an outer limit of 2 months from the date of first appearance.
(6) All rival contentions of the parties are left open.
Notes:
1 W.P.No.26900/2024, disposed of on 20.03.2025
2 W.P.No.104589/2026, disposed of on 25.09.2026
