Case Law Details
Munibyre Gowda Ganesh Vs Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax (Karnataka High Court)
In Munibyre Gowda Ganesh Vs Principal Commissioner of Central Tax, the Karnataka High Court has mandated the re-adjudication of a GST case due to the taxpayer’s hospitalization, which resulted in missing documentation crucial for the case. The petitioner sought to overturn a show cause notice and an Order-in-Original dated 25.08.2023, arguing that the absence of key documents—evidence of government contracts for the financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17—was due to their inability to furnish them while hospitalized. The court found merit in the petitioner’s claim that these documents could establish entitlement to exemptions for government contracts. Consequently, the court has set aside the previous order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. The petitioner is now allowed to submit the missing documents for review, and the case will be reassessed with these new materials, keeping all contentions open for further examination.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the show cause notice at Annexure-‘A’ dated 27.04.2021 and the Order-in-Original at Annexure-‘B’ dated 25.08.2023 passed by respondent No.1.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that while passing the Order-in-Original, the respondent Authority has specifically observed at para-10.4 that though the noticee had sought adjournment and personal hearing was fixed on 11.07.2022, on the date of personal hearing, the Chartered Accountant Sri P. Mohan Raju, the authorised representative of the noticee was present and stated that the works carried out were Government contracts and they were not in a position to furnish copy of such contracts on the ground that noticee was hospitalized and in light of non-furnishing of such documents, the respondent Authority has proceeded to pass the order.
3. It is also noticed by the observations made at paras-15.6 and 15.7 that the Work Order/Agreement are not produced for the years in question, viz., Financial Years 2015-16 and 2016-17.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the work done pursuant to the Work Orders of Departments of State Government would fall within the exemption list and accordingly, in light of the order having been passed in the absence of documents which the petitioner possesses and which would reveal that the work executed is for a Government entity, it would be necessary to relegate the matter to the Assessing Officer. The contentions raised hereinabove makes out a case for the matter being remanded to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter afresh upon the petitioner producing documents to indicate that the work executed was for Government entities for the relevant period of time.
5. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-‘B’ dated 25.08.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The petitioner is permitted to produce the documents to support his contention that work was executed for Government entities and upon production of such documents as regards the relevant years in question, the respondent Authority is permitted to pass appropriate orders after considering the documents and taking note of the contentions raised regarding the aspect of liability. All contentions are kept open.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Author Bio
