BharatTaxGST

M/S Toehold Travel And Photography Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/19407/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01042302202614 July 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. HALESHA R. GAVIMATH., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35636 WP No. 19407 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19407 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S TOEHOLD TRAVEL AND PHOTOGRAPHY PRIVATE LIMITED 15, M P ARCADE, 2ND FLOOR, 18TH MAIN ROAD, ABOVE DCB BANK, 4TH T BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SMT. NAGASHREE M B D/O MAGUR VISWESHWARA JOIS BALAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALESHA R. GAVIMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, RANGE-D, SOUTH DIVISION-6, BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KANAKPURA ROAD, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35636 WP No. 19407 of 2026 BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560070 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL BEARING OIO NO. 106/2024(GST)- SD6 DATED 30/08/2024 (ANNEXURE-D) AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL FORM GST DRC-07 BEARING REFERENCE NO. ZD290824110730H DATED 30/08/2024 (ANNEXURE-E) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2, ON THE GROUNDS OF BEING PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, REMANDING THE MATTER PERTAINING TO THE DENIAL OF INPUT TAX CREDIT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-20 TO THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTER PROVIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE PETITIONER, INCLUDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS. C) PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35636 WP No. 19407 of 2026 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 Order-in- Original dated 30.08.2024 [Annexure-D] and with the Demand in Form GST DRC-07 [Annexure-E]. The Adjudicating Authority, on a personal hearing and written submission by the petitioner on the proposition of a mismatch between Form GSTR-2A and Form GSTR-3B for the financial year 2019-20 has observed that though personal hearing is extended on multiple dates, the petitioner who has not filed any response to the Show Cause Notice, has remained absent and that in the absence of a Reply, the proceedings must be decided ex parte.

Sri Halesha R Gavimath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits [a] that the Notices were HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35636 merely uploaded on the portal and not served on the petitioner in the other modes that is contemplated and this has resulted in an order without due opportunity, [b] that if the petitioner has another opportunity, he can produce documents as would be permissible in terms of the different Circulars issued to justify the mismatch.

Sri Aravind V Chavan, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of these circumstances and with the crucial factor being undisputed viz., that the service of Notice to the petitioner is only with the Notice being uploaded on the portal. This Court is inclined to pass just orders of remand and both Sri Halesha R Gavimath and Sri Aravind V Chavan are also heard on such terms. In the light of the afore, the following: HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35636 ORDER

The petition is allowed and the Order-in- Original dated 30.08.2024 [Annexure-D] and the Demand in Form GST DRC-07 [Annexure-E].is quashed subject to the following terms.

[i] The proceedings are restored to the second respondent for due consideration subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax in demand by 05.10.2026 subject to the outcome in the restored proceedings. [ii] The petitioner is permitted to file, along with the certified copy of this Order, the copies of the documents to show the genuineness of the transactions. [iii] The petitioner shall produce these documents by 05.10.2026 and the second respondent shall consider HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35636 these documents and then conclude the proceedings by a reasoned 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.