01Facts
The original authority demanded ₹7,20,494 from the petitioner for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018 under Sections 73(8), 73(9) and 50 of the CGST/KGST/IGST Acts, read with Rule 142(1) of the relevant Rules.
pp. 4–5The petitioner appealed under Section 107 of the KGST Act. After the petitioner did not appear at the appellate hearing, the Joint Commissioner dismissed the appeal for non-appearance, while also stating that it had reviewed the appeal grounds and available records and found no reason to interfere with the original order.
pp. 4–5The petitioner challenged that appellate order by writ petition.
02Issues
i.Whether the appellate authority’s dismissal of the statutory appeal, in the petitioner’s absence, complied with the requirements governing disposal of appeals under Section 107 of the KGST Act
pp. 4–5 · pp. 9–10ii.Whether the appellate order should be set aside and the appeal remitted for reconsideration after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard
pp. 9–1103Law Applied
Section 107(12) of the KGST Act requires an appellate order disposing of an appeal to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision on those points, and the reasons for that decision.
pp. 9–10The Court also directed the appellate authority to act in accordance with Sections 107(11) and 107(12), including by providing a reasonable opportunity and deciding the appeal in accordance with law.
pp. 10–11The Court relied on the approach in Bondada Engineering Limited v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. and M/s. Anand Aluminium Works v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors., in which appeals dismissed for non-prosecution were remitted for fresh consideration.
pp. 5–9Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 50
KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 Section 73Section 50Section 107
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 50
04Reasoning
Although the appellate authority noted that the petitioner had not appeared and stated that it had considered the appeal grounds and available material, the High Court held that the order did not satisfy Section 107(12), because it lacked the required points for determination, decisions on those points, and reasons.
pp. 4–5 · pp. 9–10Given that the appeal was a statutory remedy available on facts and law, the Court considered it appropriate to set aside the order and afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to present its case, consistent with the cited decisions.
pp. 5–9 · p. 1005Holding
The writ petition was allowed, and the appellate order dated 23 December 2025 was set aside.
pp. 10–12The matter was remanded to the appellate authority to provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and decide the appeal in accordance with Sections 107(11) and 107(12) of the KGST Act.
pp. 10–12The petitioner was directed to appear on 26 October 2026; the authority was requested to dispose of the appeal within two months of the first appearance.
pp. 10–12All rival contentions were left open.
pp. 10–12Original Court PDF
M/S P. V. KADAM AND SONSvsTHE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
