Case Details: Hari Construction Versus Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Mysore (2025) 30 Centax 166 (Kar.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
- Smt. Mahima S., Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Shri Hemakumar K., AGA for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner received a pre-intimation notice and a show-cause notice regarding alleged tax dues but did not respond or participate in the proceedings. These notices related to demand of tax, interest, and penalty, and an ex-parte order confirming the demand was passed, followed by a recovery notice directing attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts. The petitioner filed an appeal against the ex-parte order before the designated appellate authority, which was dismissed as time barred. The petitioner then approached the Karnataka High Court because the appeal remedy was exhausted and the GST Appellate Tribunal was not yet constituted.
he petitioner submitted that the failure to respond to notices and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, including lack of effective communication of notices and unavoidable circumstances that caused unawareness of the proceedings.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court noted that although the petitioner did not respond or contest the proceedings, the claimed bona fide reasons warranted a fresh opportunity for consideration. The dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds did not prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court set aside the ex-parte order and remitted the matter back to the competent authority for fresh examination. The petitioner was directed to appear and submit replies, with the authority required to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to present their case and decide the matter in accordance with law.
