Ganga Medical Stores Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit) (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition filed by M/s Ganga Medical Stores challenging an ex-parte GST adjudication order dated 11.12.2025 for Financial Year 2021-22. The petitioner submitted that its proprietrix was pregnant during the relevant period and, owing to her medical condition, was required to take rest and undergo treatment. Consequently, she could neither respond to the notices nor participate in the adjudication proceedings. Medical records were produced to substantiate the explanation. The Revenue opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had admittedly received notice but remained absent and also had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner, however, pointed out that the prescribed limitation period for filing such appeal had already expired.
The High Court noted that the proceedings culminated in an admittedly ex-parte order and that the medical records supported the petitioner’s assertion regarding pregnancy during the relevant period. It also referred to the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Sri. Siddappa Vs Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.204270/2025, dated 14.08.2026 (Karnataka High Court), where a similarly placed matter had been remanded for fresh consideration. Taking into account the grounds urged and documents produced, the Court held that the petitioner deserved one opportunity to submit her reply and place the necessary material before the authority. The Court also noted that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act could no longer be availed as the prescribed appeal period had expired.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dated 11.12.2025, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded on or before 14.10.2026. The matter was remitted to the authority for fresh consideration from the stage of filing the petitioner’s reply and documents. The petitioner was directed to file the reply and relevant documents within one month from receipt of the order and to appear before the authority on 14.10.2026 without awaiting further notice. The authority was directed to provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The Court further directed that if the petitioner failed to appear on 14.10.2026, the impugned order would automatically stand revived without any further order.
Cases Discussed
- Sri. Siddappa Vs Assistant Commissioner, W.P.No.204270/2025, dated 14.08.2026 (Karnataka High Court) — Co-ordinate Bench decision considered and followed where, in similar circumstances, the matter was remanded to the concerned authority for fresh consideration.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In this writ petitioner, the petitioner is seeking for the following prayers:
“ A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable Writ quashing the order under section 73(9) dated 11/12/2025 bearing No. DCCT/ADT/BDR/AdjOrder/2024-25 along with summary of Order bearing Ref No.ZD2912250983541 in Form GST DRC-07 for the period 2021-22 issued by Respondent No.1 and enclosed as Annexure E.
B. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other suitable Writ quashing the Show Cause Notice under section 73(1) dated 24/09/2025 bearing No.DCCT/ADT/BDR/DRC-01/2025-26 along with summary of Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 for the pered bearing 2021-22 reference no.ZD290925162049W issued by Respondent No.1 and enclosed as Annexure D.
C. And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Smt. Rama P.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 issued a notice dated 25.07.2025 to conduct an audit of the books of accounts of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.1 conducted the adjudication proceedings and passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay tax, penalty and interest. It is submitted that the impugned order is admittedly an ex-parte order. The petitioner is a proprietor and was pregnant during the relevant period, and the medical documents produced along with the writ petition substantiate the said fact. Hence, she could neither respond to the notices nor participate in the adjudication proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to allow the writ petition by remanding the matter to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to submit her reply and place the necessary material on record. She further submits that the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in similar circumstances, have allowed the writ petitions and remanded the matter to the concerned authorities for fresh consideration. Hence, she seeks to pass a similar order by setting aside the impugned order.
4. Per contra, Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner had admitted the service of the notice and, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, remained absent. Hence, the authority had no option but to proceed with the adjudication and pass the impugned order. It is further submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the statute. Hence, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and seeks to dismiss this writ petition.
5. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the statutory remedy of appeal cannot be availed of at this stage, as the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal has already expired. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. She further submits that, in similar circumstances, this Court has considered the issue and remanded the matter to the authority for fresh consideration. Accordingly, she seeks to allow the present petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and meticulously perused the material on record.
7. The petitioner is a proprietor registered under the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘GST Act’ for short). The petitioner was issued a notice dated 25.07.2025 to conduct an audit under Section 73 of the GST Act for the Financial Year 2021-22. Thereafter, respondent No.1 proceeded to issue an intimation of tax demand under Section 73(5) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 along with the summary in Form GST-DRC/01A for the period 2021-22. Respondent No.1, thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 24.09.2025, along with the summary in the prescribed Form, for the Financial Year 2021-22 and passed the order, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
8. The contention of the petitioner is that she could not participate in the proceedings before respondent No.1, as she was pregnant during the relevant period and owing to her medical condition, she was required to take rest and undergo medical treatment. Consequently, she could not participate in the proceedings. In order to substantiate the said contention, the petitioner has produced the medical records at Annexure-F, which indicates the petitioner’s assertion regarding her pregnancy during the relevant period required acceptance.
9. It is to be noticed that the authorities initially issued a notice proposing an audit. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued, the adjudication proceedings were undertaken and the impugned order came to be passed. Admittedly, the impugned order is an ex-parte order. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI. SIDDAPPA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER1 has considered the similarly placed case and remanded the matter to the concerned Authority for fresh consideration.
10. Considering the observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision and taking note of the grounds urged by the petitioner as well as the documents produced by the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be provided one opportunity to submit her reply and place the necessary material before the authority.
11. It is also relevant to note that the statutory remedy of appeal provided Section 107 of the Act, cannot be availed at this length of time, as the prescribed period for filing the appeal has already expired. The petitioner has offered sufficient explanation for her non-appearance before the authority during the adjudication proceedings. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-E. is set aside, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded under the impugned order on or before 14.10.2026.
iii) The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 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 respondent No.1 on 14.10.2026, without awaiting further notice.
v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file such further reply and documents as may be necessary. Respondent No.1 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 respondent No.1 on 14.10.2026, as stated supra, the impugned order shall stand revived automatically, without further orders.
Note:
1 W.P.No.204270/2025 dated 14.08.2026
