Facts
The petitioner, a GST-registered proprietorship, challenged an ex parte order dated 11 December 2025 under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act for FY 2021–22, following a show-cause notice dated 24 September 2025.
Source reference: paras. 1, 7She submitted that pregnancy and related medical treatment prevented her from responding or participating; she produced medical records in support.
Source reference: paras. 2, 8The State submitted that she had notice of the proceedings and could have appealed under Section 107, but the petitioner argued that the appeal period had expired.
Source reference: paras. 4–5, 11Issues
1. Whether the ex parte adjudication order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration because the petitioner’s pregnancy and medical condition prevented her participation.
Source reference: paras. 8–102. Whether the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 107 precluded writ relief where the appeal period had expired.
Source reference: paras. 4–5, 11Law Applied
Section 73 of the CGST/KGST Act provides the framework for determination of tax not paid or short-paid in cases not involving fraud or wilful misstatement, including adjudication under Section 73(9).
Source reference: para. 7Section 107 provides a statutory appeal remedy; the Court noted that it could no longer be availed within the prescribed period in this case.
Source reference: para. 11The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Sri Siddappa v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No. 204270/2025 (14 August 2026), in which a matter involving similar circumstances was remanded for fresh consideration.
Source reference: para. 9Reasoning
The Court accepted that the medical records supported the petitioner’s account of pregnancy during the relevant period and her inability to participate in the adjudication.
Source reference: para. 8Given that the order was ex parte, that she had offered a sufficient explanation for her non-appearance, and that the statutory appeal period had expired, the Court considered a fresh opportunity before the authority appropriate, consistently with Sri Siddappa.
Source reference: paras. 9–11Holding
The petition was allowed, and the order dated 11 December 2025 was set aside subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax demanded by 14 October 2026.
The matter was remitted for fresh consideration from the stage of the petitioner’s reply. She must file her reply and documents within one month of receiving the order and appear before the authority on 14 October 2026; the authority must provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide the matter in accordance with law.
Source reference: order, clauses (iii)–(v)If she fails to appear on 14 October 2026, the impugned order will revive automatically.
Source reference: order, clause (vi)Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 20172
Original Court PDF
M/S GANGA MEDICAL STORESvsDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
