GST LogoGST Press

SDB Infrastructures Vs State of Karnataka

Date: October 13, 2025

Court: High Court
Bench: Karnataka
Type: Writ Petition
Judge(s)/Member(s): S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Download

Subject Matter

Ex-parte GST Adjudication Order Set Aside Due to Business Closure, Allowing Fresh Opportunity for Reply

Adjudication

Summary

The petition is allowed, setting aside an ex-parte adjudication order and remitting the matter for fresh reconsideration. The High Court adopted a justice-oriented approach, finding the petitioner's inability to respond to the show-cause notice was due to bonafide reasons as their business had shut down.

Summary of Facts and Dispute:
  1. Impugned Action: An Adjudication Order (No. DCCT/(A)-2/DVG/GST/ADJN/2024-25/T-884 dated 29.01.2025) and a Summary Order in Form DRC-07 (dated 29.01.2025) were passed ex-parte under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017, confirming a total demand of Rs. 28,05,004/- (including tax, interest, and penalty). These orders, along with a subsequent Recovery Notice (dated 02.06.2025), were issued after the petitioner failed to submit a reply to a show-cause notice dated 23.11.2024, which was issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017.
  2. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that their business had shut down, causing emails from the respondents to go unnoticed. This bonafide reason and unavoidable circumstance prevented them from submitting replies/documents to the show-cause notice and contesting the proceedings, necessitating another opportunity to be heard.
  3. Core Question of Law: Should an ex-parte adjudication order passed under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017, be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, when the petitioner's failure to respond to a show-cause notice under Section 73(1) was due to bonafide reasons such as business closure?
Key Legal Issues & Findings:
Propriety of Setting Aside Ex-parte Adjudication Order

The Court, taking a justice-oriented approach, considered the petitioner's plea that their inability to contest proceedings was due to bonafide reasons.

  • Bonafide Reasons: The petitioner specifically asserted that their business had ceased operations, leading to notices sent to their email ID going unnoticed, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.
  • Justice-Oriented Approach: Having regard to the specific assertion of bonafide reasons and unavoidable circumstances, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order.
Ruling:
  1. Outcome: The impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017, is hereby set aside. The petition is allowed subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs. 15,000/- to the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within six weeks.
  2. Directions: The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for fresh reconsideration in accordance with law, from the stage of the petitioner submitting its reply to the notice dated 23.11.2024 issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 18.11.2025 without awaiting further notice.
  3. Liberty: Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents, etc., which shall be considered by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hear them, and proceed further in accordance with law. In the event the petitioner does not appear before the respondent on 18.11.2025, the present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

“A. Quash the Adjudication Order in No. DCCT/(A)-2/DVG/GST/ADJN/2024-25/T-884 DT: 29.01.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 in Annexure-H and Summary order in Form DRC-07 in Reference No.ZD2901251133191 dt: 29.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No.2 in Annexure-H1.

B. Issue a writ of certiorari or such other Writ, Order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to quash the Recovery Notice in No. DCCT(ADT)-2/DVG/2025-26/57 dated 02.06.2025 in Annexure-J, issued by Respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of CGST Act & KGST Act, 2017.”

C. Pass such other order or orders, directions and writs as this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice, including the costs of this writ petition.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to the Final Audit Report dated 14.11.2024, the respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 23.11.2024 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that there were several discrepancies committed by the petitioner that were noticed during the audit proceedings. Since the petitioner did not submit its reply to the said show-cause notice, the respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.28,05,004/- including the tax, interest and penalty.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner’s business had been shut down, the e-mails which were sent by the respondents went un-noticed by the petitioner and consequently, couldn’t submit replies / documents to the show-cause notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly, couldn’t contest the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner having no option has approached this Court by way of the present petition interalia contending that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the intimation notice and show-cause notice and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause 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 AGA 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 the petitioner’s business had shut down its operations and the said notices that were sent by the respondent to the petitioner’s e-mail Id went unnoticed by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner did not file its reply / documents culminated in the impugned ex-parte order.

7. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that its 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 29.01.2025 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 23.11.2024.

8. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i). The petition is hereby allowed subject to the petitioner depositing cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within a period of six weeks from today.

(ii). The impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 at Annexure – H is hereby set aside.

(iii). The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting its reply to the notice dated 23.11.2024 issued under Section 73(1)of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 18.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the 2nd

(v) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the 2nd 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 18.11.2025 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders.