Karnataka HC Orders Verification of GST Documents Not Submitted Due to Noticee’s Hospitalization

The Karnataka High Court in a ruling asked a re-adjudication to investigate documents not previously provided to prove the authenticity of a Government contract in the hospitalization case of a GST taxpayer.

The applicant argued that at the time of passing the Order-in-Original, the respondent Authority noted that the notice had asked for an adjournment, and a personal hearing was designated dated 11.07.2022, on the date of the personal hearing, the Chartered Accountant P. Mohan Raju, the authorized representative of the notice, was present and remarked that the works performed were government contracts, and not in a position to provide copies of such contracts on the foundation that the notice was hospitalized; therefore, under non-providing of documents, the respondent Authority moved to pass the order.

The taxpayers’ representative Mr. Mudrabettu Chaitanya Venkatesh noted that the work performed according to the work orders of the Departments of State Government shall fall within the exemption list and consequently, under the order that has been passed in the absence of the documents which the applicant secures and which shall show that the work performed is for the Government entity, it is important to relegate the case to the Assessing Officer.

Read Also:- Don’t Pay GST on Entire Medical Bills, Must Check Here

It was noted by the court that the case was remanded to the assessing officer to reconsider the case afresh on the applicant furnishing the documents to show that the work performed was for the Government entities for the pertinent duration.

Hence, the bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav ruled that the order at Annexure-‘B’ on 25.08.2023 was set aside. For fresh consideration, the case was remitted. It allowed the applicant to produce documents supporting his opinion that work was performed for Government entities.

Also Read:- GST Impact on Healthcare Industry in India

On production of these documents for the appropriate years in question, the respondent authority was allowed to pass a relevant order post acknowledging the documents and considering the view raised for the aspect of the liability.

Hence, the petition was disposed of.