Judgment
- 1 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010056812026 NC: 2026:KHC:47740 WP No. 2887 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2887 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
M/S BLEUCLIF APPARELS INDIA PRIVATE LTD NO.410, OLD NO.PID NO.39 56, VAIJAYANTHA ARCADE, ITI LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE, OPP. GOPALAN ARCADE MALL, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU URBAN -560039 (REPRESENTED BY HIS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI.SREEJITH KUMAR PERINGALI SON OF K.K.NARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS).
2.
SRI.SREEJITH KUMAR PERINGALI SON OF K.K.NARAYANAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.26, 1ST MAIN ROAD, NAYANDHALLI, SOUTH BADAVANE, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE -560039.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. E.I.SANMATHI.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location:
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010056812026 NC: 2026:KHC:47740 WP No. 2887 of 2026
AND:
ASSISTANT COMERCIAL TAX AUDIT-2.8, DGSTO-2, NO.642, 1ST FLOOR, PIONEER PLAZZA KENCHENA HALLI MAIN ROAD, NEAR GOPALAN ARCADE MALL, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560098
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K. HEMAKUMAR., AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE (A) ADJUDICATION ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED 9/2/2204 FOR FINANCIAL PERIOD 2018-19 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT-2.8 DGSTO-2, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-A);
(B) FORM GST DRC-07-SUMMARY OF ORDER BEARING REF NO.ZD290224019427E FOR FY 2018-19 DATED 9/2/2024 BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT-2.8 DGSTO-2, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-B); (II) TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 79(1) (C)OF THE ACT DATED 20/5/2024 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, AUDIT 2.8, DGSTO-2, BANGALORE TO CANARA BANK (ANNEXURE- G) AND TO DIRECT FIRST RESPONDENT TO REFUND RS.25,00,812 TO SECOND PETITIONER WHICH HAS RECOVERED FROM THE HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT FROM DATE OF RECOVERY TILL PAYMENT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010056812026 NC: 2026:KHC:47740 WP No. 2887 of 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Adjudication Order dated 09.02.2024 and the Summary thereof [Annexures-A and B] while also calling in question the Recovery Notice dated 20.05.2024 [Annexure-F].
The petitioner seeks interference with the Adjudication Order and the subsequent proceedings on lack of a reasonable opportunity; and in elaboration, Sri E. I. Sanmathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, upon receipt of intimation in Form DRC-01A on 20.12.2022, has filed a partial response but could not file a detailed response because of the proceedings commenced by its bankers for certain default.
2.
Sri E. I. Sanmathi submits that the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 is issued on
- 4 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010056812026 NC: 2026:KHC:47740 WP No. 2887 of 2026
28.12.2023 and the adjudication proceedings are closed on the ground that this notice when sent by RPAD is returned with a remark that the petitioner had left the premises without instruction and that this is because the premises was under the banker's lock and key. To support the request for interference and an opportunity to file a detailed response to the show cause notice dated 28.12.2023, the learned counsel, relying upon the petitioner's bank account, submits that a sum of ₹ 25,00,000 is recovered from the personal account of the petitioner’s representative [Sri Sreejith Kumar P.].
3.
Sri K. Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents, is heard on whether this Court must interfere to restore the proceedings with opportunity to the petitioner to file a detailed response to the show cause notice dated 28.12.2023. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010056812026 NC: 2026:KHC:47740 WP No. 2887 of 2026
petitioner has filed this petition almost three years after the Adjudication Order and that he cannot, based on the entries in the bank statement, affirm that the recovery relates to the impugned Adjudication Order.
4.
However, this Court must observe that the petitioner's case that there were distress proceedings by its bankers for certain default and its premises were locked is not in dispute. This affords reason for answering the question in the affirmative to extend an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice dated 28.12.2023. The petitioner, who was constrained with the proceedings initiated because of a default, must have an opportunity to show cause against the demand and justify the recovery of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as mentioned in Annexure-E, but this Court must also observe that if this recovery does not relate to the subject period that would be a cause not just for recall of this order
- 6 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010056812026 NC: 2026:KHC:47740 WP No. 2887 of 2026
but also for dismissal of the petition. In the light of the afore, the following:
ORDER [A] The petition is allowed quashing the impugned Adjudication Order/Summary of such order dated 09.02.2024 [Annexures- A and B] and the Recovery Notice dated 20.05.2024 [Annexure-F] with liberty to the petitioner to file response to the show cause notice dated 28.12.2023.
[B] The petitioner shall file the response along with the documents without further notice by 12.10.2026.
Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
SA Ct:sr