Sri. Asif Ulla Shariff vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
THE CONSEQUENTIAL BANK ATTACHMENT ORDER AND ALL RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED PURSUANT TO THE DIGITALLY SIGNED IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2026 NO.ACCT/LGSTO-120/DRC 13/2025-26 FOR THE PERIOD 2018-19, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-Q; D. DIRECTION, REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT- ASSISTANT HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010484722026 NC: 2026:KHC:39414 COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-120, FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 128A OF THE CGST/KGST ACT, AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, AND THEREAFTER TO PASS A REASONED ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW; E. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO KEEP ALL RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING THE BANK ATTACHMENT, IN ABEYANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner's grievance is with the first respondent's Order dated 30.09.2025 in Form GST SPL-07 [Annexure-N]. The first respondent has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 128A of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for waiver of interest. The first respondent has reasoned that the application must be rejected because the petitioner has not filed any response though served HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010484722026 NC: 2026:KHC:39414 with a show cause why the application must be accepted.
Ms. Pratibha V R, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the first respondent is in the wrong in observing that the petitioner has not filed any Reply because, with the service of Notice in Form GST SPL-03 dated 09.07.2025, the petitioner has filed Reply on 15.07.2025 which is also acknowledged by the first respondent. Mr. K Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is assisted by Ms. Malavika Prasad, the learned High Court Government Pleader, are heard on the terms of interference in the light of the afore.
Indeed, it is shown to this Court’s satisfaction that the petitioner has filed Reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.07.2025 but the first respondent has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner has not responded. There HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010484722026 NC: 2026:KHC:39414 is lack of application of mind, and hence, this Court must interfere to restore the petitioner's application under Section 128A of the Act for reconsideration observing that the first respondent must extend an opportunity to the petitioner and decide on the merits of the petitioner's application in the light of the cause shown and any further documents that the petitioner may produce before the first respondent. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part. [B] The first respondent’s Order dated 30.09.2025 [Annexure-N] is quashed restoring the petitioner's application for reconsideration. [C] The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent on 05.10.2026 without further notice and the first respondent shall dispose of such HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010484722026 NC: 2026:KHC:39414 application in the light of this Court's observation after extending an opportunity to the petitioner. [D] It is needless to observe that with the restoration of the petitioner's application, there shall be no precipitation in terms of the impugned Order. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.