9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 888 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURTViolation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - It is submitted that without considering the documents submitted by the petitioner, adjudication has been completed without proper notice to the petitioner - HELD THAT - It is noticed that the order passed is an ex-parte order without the say of the petitioner. Though the electronic mode of service may be sufficient, however, in the peculiar facts of this case, taking note of the substantive rights involved, it would serve the interest of justice by remanding the matter and granting another opportunity to the petitioner to participate and make out his reply to the show cause notice dated 27.09.2023. If the objective of Section 75 (4) of the Act is kept in mind, requirement is of providing an opportunity wherever adverse order is sought to be passed. Taking note of such legal mandate, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to participate in the adjudication process and accordingly, the order at Annexure-A is set aside - Petition disposed off. Issues involved: Challenge to adjudication order, summary of order, and recovery proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent.
The petitioner challenged the adjudication order and summary of the order issued by the 2nd respondent, along with the consequential recovery proceedings. The petitioner claimed that the adjudication was completed without proper notice and requested another opportunity to participate in the process as per Section 75(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the notice served through email was not effectively communicated to them. The learned Additional Government Advocate contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner as required by law, and the petitioner's lack of awareness of the notice sent via email was not a valid reason. After hearing both sides, the court noted that the order was ex-parte and decided to remand the matter to grant the petitioner another opportunity to participate in the adjudication process. The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity as per Section 75(4) of the Act whenever an adverse order is sought. Considering the legal mandate, the court set aside the order and recovery proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent, restoring the matter to the stage of the show cause notice. The petitioner was given four weeks to respond to the notice, and any grounds on limitation were deemed irrelevant. All contentions were kept open, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
