SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 1366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
B.M. Shyam Prasad, J.
Tinton River Palms – Petitioner
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1937 of 2023
Decided On : 30-1-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.M. Shivayogi Swamy
For the Respondent: Hema Kumar K.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 65[5] and Section 65[6] - Audit report challenged for lack of reasonable opportunity - Court found that the notice issued to the petitioner was served only after the impugned audit report was passed, thus violating the principles of natural justice. (Paras 2, 4)

(B) Reasonable opportunity - The principle of providing a reasonable opportunity to respond to notices is paramount, and failure to do so in the auditing process renders the audit report invalid. (Paras 3, 4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested an audit report dated 31.12.2022 under the KGST/CGST Act, claiming that the notice for response was provided only days before the audit report was issued, denying a fair chance to respond.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the issuance of the audit report without reasonable opportunity is invalid and quashed the report while allowing the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice appropriately.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the audit report as mandated by law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice demand that parties must be given reasonable notice and opportunity to present their case; failure to adhere to this violates procedural fairness.

Result: Petition allowed-in-part, quashing the audit report.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges audit report and seeks re-adjudication. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding reasonable opportunity for response. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's observation on opportunity provided to the petitioner. (Para 4)
4. order quashing audit report and allowing response submission. (Para 5)

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has impugned the audit report dated 31.12.2013 under Section 65[6] of the KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'KGST/CGST Act'] as per Annexure-E, and for consequential direction to the third respondent to re-adjudicate after extending a reasonable opportunity in terms of Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2022 [Annexure-D] issued under Section 65[5] of the KGST/CGST Act. Sri. K M Shivayogiswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. K Hemakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for final disposal in view of the narrow canvass of the petitioner's grievance.

2. Sri K M Shivayogiswamy submits that the petitioner is extended with opportunity to file books of accounts and the last of the endorsement in that regard is issued on 13.10.2022. The third respondent has issued Notice under Section 65[5] of the KGST/CGST Act on 09.12.2022 and this Notice is received by the petitioner only on 23.12.2022. The third respondent, within seven days there from without reasonable opportunity, has passed the impugned Audit report.

3. Sri K Hemakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, drawing the attention of this Court to the observation in the impugned audit report, submits that though the opportunity is extended to the petitioner to respond to the observations on 09.12.2022, the petitioner has not filed response and therefore the petitioner cannot complain of lack of opportunity. However, Sri. K Hemakumar is unable to dispute that this notice is served on the petitioner only on 23.12.2022 and the impugned audit report is within seven days there from.

4. If the petitioner has furnished books of accounts in the month of March 2022 and the final endorsement is issued on 13.10.2022, and if it is undisputed that Notice under Section 65[5] of the KGST/CGST Act is served on the petitioner only on 23.12.2022, this Court must opine that the impugned audit report cannot be said to be after a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, this Court must interfere with the impugned order. At this stage, when queried, Sri. K M Shivayogiswamy submits that the petitioner would respond to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2022 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the light of the above, the following:

ORDER:

5. The petition is allowed-in-part, quashing the impugned Audit Report dated 31.12.2022 [Annexure-E]. The petitioner is reserved liberty to file its response with the third respondent on or before 27.02.2023 and for the purposes of Section 65[6] of the KGST/CGST Act, the prescribed thirty days shall be computed from 27.02.2023.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top