2025 (7) TMI 1390 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - no service of notice on petiitoner - HELD THAT - Due to issue of notice to wrong GSTIN number there was no service of notice on the petitioner- Company and the impugned order passed under Section 73(9) of 2017 Act is an exparte order. Admittedly the petitioner s GSTIN number is No. AADCD7853L1Z2 whereas one Ravikumar Jonna proprietorship is also the holder GST registration under GSTIN bearing No.29AETPJ7780F1ZS (Annexure-B). Though the impugned order indicates the name of the taxable person as M/s. Dop Total Spirits Pvt. Ltd. GSTIN is shown as Mr. Ravikumar Jonna Proprietorship. As the petitioner had no notice of the proceedings initiated under Section 73 of 2017 Act the matter needs to be remanded to the respondent-Authorities for providing an opportunity to the petitioner and to participate further in the matter since it involves substantial right of the petitioner. Looking into the object of Section 75(4) of 2017 Act the petitioner would be entitled for an opportunity. Impugned order is quashed - the mater is restored to the stage of fresh notice - Petition allowed.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, quashed the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 142(1) of the KGSTD Rules, 2017, on the ground of lack of proper service of notice. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company holding GSTIN No. 29AADCD7853L1Z2, was not served notice as the order incorrectly referenced the GSTIN of a sole proprietorship (Mr. Ravikumar Jonna). The Court held that "due to issue of notice to wrong GSTIN number, there was no service of notice on the petitioner-Company and the impugned order... is an ex parte order." Recognizing the petitioner's substantial rights under Section 75(4) of the 2017 Act, the Court remanded the matter for fresh issuance of notice, allowing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the petitioner granted four weeks to submit its reply "without raising ground of limitation," with all other contentions left open for adjudication.