The Kalaburagi Bench remanded a GST adjudication to allow the taxpayer to file replies and documents, finding pregnancy and related medical complications a valid explanation for non-appearance; the order was quashed subject to a 10% deposit of the tax demand.
The Karnataka High Court quashed an ex parte GST adjudication because the taxpayer’s pregnancy and medical records provided a sufficient reason for non-appearance.
The case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority at the stage of submission of replies and supporting documents, conditional on the taxpayer depositing 10% of the tax demanded.
Bench relied on an earlier coordinate decision (Sri. Siddappa v. Assistant Commissioner) to require the authority to permit the taxpayer to file a response before confirming demand.
The petitioner, Soumya, proprietor of Ganga Medical Stores, received an audit notice for financial year 2021–22. The audit proceeded to an intimation of tax demand under section 73(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and a show-cause notice dated 24 September 2025. The adjudicating authority confirmed tax, interest and penalty through an ex parte order after the taxpayer did not appear in the proceedings.
Soumya stated she could not appear before the adjudicating authority because she was pregnant and experienced related medical complications. She produced medical records to support that explanation.
Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil of the Karnataka High Court's Kalaburagi Bench allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. The bench held the petitioner had offered a sufficient explanation for non-appearance and that an ex parte order passed without allowing an opportunity to file a reply and supporting documents was not appropriate in these circumstances.
The court quashed the adjudication order but placed one condition: the petitioner must deposit 10% of the tax demand. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority at the stage where replies and supporting documents may be submitted. The bench directed that the adjudicating process resume with the taxpayer being given a chance to submit her case.
Practical implications for taxpayers and authorities
Taxpayers: Medical emergencies including pregnancy complications can be accepted as valid reasons for non-appearance if supported by records. If an ex parte order has been passed, a writ petition can be used to seek relief where the absence was justified.
Authorities: Adjudicating bodies should ensure procedural fairness by creating an opportunity for affected taxpayers to file replies and supporting documents before confirming demands, especially where credible medical evidence is presented.
Case title: M/s Ganga Medical Stores vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
For petitioner: Smt. Swati and Smt. Rama P.V. For respondent: Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar and Sri. Girish S. Hulimani Bench: Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil (Kalaburagi Bench)
The High Court restored procedural fairness by sending the matter back for adjudication when pregnancy and medical records justified the taxpayer's absence. The conditional deposit of 10% of the tax demand balances the need to protect revenue with the court's insistence on allowing the taxpayer a genuine chance to be heard.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the GST Department’s plea seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail. The Court reached this decision after considering the Department’s counsel’s argument that the accused could not be arrested without an order under Section 69 of the CGST Act and prior notification of that order.
The Calcutta High Court set aside a goods and services tax (GST) order that was passed without furnishing an adequate chance to be heard, as the SCN was given via the additional notices portal. The petitioners, M/s. Silicon Ceramics & Ors., submitted the writ petition and asked for condonation of delay in filing the ap
The Madras High Court has quashed an order denying a taxpayer’s application for exemption from GST interest and penalty u/s 128A because the taxpayer had paid the tax via Form GST DRC-03 but did not submit Form GST DRC-03A to link that payment to the demand. The bench of Justice C. Saravanan noted that the […] The post
The Calcutta High Court has set aside a 1.18 crore GST demand and granted retrospective ITC relief for the late filing of GSTR-3B. The applicant, Manash Ghosh, contested the legality and sustainability of the adjudication order dated 19 April 2024, passed u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act
The Rajasthan High Court has stated that authentication of portal access and authentication of a document are not the same requirements. The Court set aside the unsigned SCN and order. The applicant, Star Raison Landmarks, was chosen for the scrutiny proceedings via Form ASMT-10. Following the response to this, a ‘show
The GST Appellate Tribunal at Delhi has said that electronic gift vouchers (EGVs) can be a mode of passing on a GST rate reduction, where they furnish customers with a direct monetary credit without conditions, expiry, or usage restrictions. The ruling came in proceedings involving Sane Retails Pvt. Ltd., accused of fa
Loading more related stories...
Open the app view to save this story, compare related coverage, and continue from the same source.