BharatTaxGST

M/S Nirmithi Kendra Bengaluru Rural District vs. State Of Karnataka

Original PDF →
WP/22118/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01048243202621 July 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD5 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. ANIL KUMAR B., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010482432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37603 WP No. 22118 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22118 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S NIRMITHI KENDRA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 2ND FLOOR, BENGALURU RURAL, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, K.G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 REPRESENTED BY, SHRI.MOHAN KUMAR S, PROJECT DIRECTOR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010482432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37603 WP No. 22118 of 2026 (AUDIT)-5.13, DGSTO-5, VTK-2, RAJENDRA NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (VIGILANCE-02) O/O THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, 5TH FLOOR, 'B' BLOCK, ROOM NO.506, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-2 KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DCCT (AUDIT- 5.13)/DGSTO-5/ADJ-/2025-26 DATED 27.03.2026 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, AND ETC., 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 Adjudication Order dated 27.03.2026 [Annexure-A] under Section 73(9) of Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’]. Mr. Anil Kumar B., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Jyoti M. Maradi, the learned High Court HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010482432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37603 Government Pleader for the respondents, are heard on whether this Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the petitioner contending lack of juri iction.

2.

Mr. Anil Kumar B. submits that the petitioner is bona fide in stating that the petitioner had requested its Tax Practitioner to conduct the proceedings, who assured to appear before the respondents and make submissions after taking an initial adjournment and that the proceedings are concluded referring to the objections filed and the opportunities availed while simultaneously stating that the petitioner has not responded to the Show Cause Notices. The learned counsel also submits that the records available in themselves demonstrate that no liability could be fastened on the petitioner under Section 73 of the Act.

3.

This Court for the present must refer to two portions of the impugned Adjudication Orders which reads as under: HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010482432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37603 “The Objections filed in written reply and the submission made during the personal hearing along with supporting documents were examined and the findings of such examination were discussed in accordance with provisions of the KGST Act, 2017 read with KGST Rules, 2017 and read with relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, IGST Act, 2017 and GST (Compensation) Act, 2017 and Rules made, as under:…” “The RTP reply: The RTP has neither submitted reply nor furnished any documentary evidences or clarifications against the aforesaid observations.” “Conclusion: Since the RTP neither submitted reply nor furnished any documentary evidence or clarifications, made in the SCN is hereby confirmed. The RTP is liable to pay the amount and along with applicable interest in terms Section 50(1) and penalty u/s. 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017.”

4.

This Court, with these contradictory observations, must opine that there is lack of application of mind and that the matter must be restored for due consideration with opportunity to the petitioner to file response to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2025. In the light of the afore, the following: HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010482432026 NC: 2026:KHC:37603 ORDER The petition is allowed in-part. The impugned Adjudication Order dated 27.03.2026 [Annexure-A] is quashed. The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file response to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2025 [Annexure-B], without further notice, with the third respondent on 24.09.2026. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27

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.