M/S Sree Lakshmi Hardware vs. The Superintendent Central Tax

WP/19955/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01044311202610 July 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD5 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.R.., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. R. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original under Section 74(10) and a subsequent Order-in-Appeal under Section 107(11) of the CGST Act for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The appellate authority decided the appeal noting the petitioner's non-participation. However, the petitioner contended that written submissions had been filed which were not considered.

Held

The High Court held that if written submissions were filed, they ought to have been considered by the appellate authority, as Section 107(9) of the CGST/KGST Act requires a decision on merits based on material on record. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal was quashed, and the matter was restored to the appellate authority for reconsideration.

Key Issues

Whether the appellate authority erred by not considering the petitioner's written submissions while deciding the appeal, despite the petitioner's representative not participating in the oral proceedings.

Sections Cited

Section 74(10), Section 74(1), Section 107(11), Section 107(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35172 WP No. 19955 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19955 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. SREE LAKSHMI HARDWARE PROP. A. N. KRISHNAMURHTY (HUF ) REPRESENTED BY KARTHA SRI. A.N. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O A.R. NARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS ALAMPALLI BUILDING 146/127/B M. G. ROAD, GAURIBIDANUR 561208 CHJICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR.R.., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI. R. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL TAX RENGE D, DIVISION 9 NORTH COMMISSIONERATE HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD BANGALORE 560 032 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF GST APPEALS -II BENGAURU TTMC, BMTC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, DOMLUR BANGALORE 560 071 …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35172 WP No. 19955 of 2026 (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THE PETITIONER HUMBLY PRAYS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING I) THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL PASSED U/S 74(10) OF THE ACT DATED 23.01.2024 FOR THE TAX PERIOD JULY 2017 TO MARCH 2018 (ANNEXURE-B) (DIN 20240157YX0000319066) BY THE 1 RESPONDENT. II) THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL PASSED IN GST A NO.56/2024-25 U/S 107(11) OF THE ACT DATED 27.02.2026 FOR THE TAX PERIOD JULY 2017 TO MARCH 2018 (ANNEXURE C) (OIA NO.379/2025-26) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENTB. THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IN THE PETITIONER'S CASE. 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 23.01.2024 under Section 74 (1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, the CGST Act’] and the subsequent Order-in- Appeal dated 27.02.2026 under Section 107 (11) of HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35172 the CGST Act. The details of these two impugned orders are as follows: [a] The Order-in-Original under Section 74 (10) of the Act dated 23.01.2024 is for the Tax Period between July 2017 to March 2018 [Annexure- B] [DIN 2024157YX0000319066] [b] the Order-in-Appeal passed in GST A No.56/2024-25 under Section 107 (11) of the Act dated 27.02.2026 is for the Tax period July 2017 to March 2018 [Annexure-C]

Sri Chandrashekar R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, the learned counsel who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard on whether this Court must interfere with either the Order-in-Appeal or the Order-in-Original. It comes across as undisputed that the appellate authority has examined the merits of the petitioner’s appeal observing that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35172 petitioner’s representative has not participated in the proceedings.

Sri Chandrashekar R. submits that the petitioner has filed written submissions and that should have been considered while deciding the appeal. This Court finds force in the submission. If written submissions are filed, that ought to have been considered. The Section 107(9) of the CGST/KGST Act enjoins the appellate authority to extend three opportunities and decide on merits giving reasons in the light of the material on record. Hence, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed-in-part. The Order- in-Appeal dated 27.02.2026 [Annexure-C] is quashed restoring the appeal before the Board of the appellate authority for reconsideration. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35172 [B] The petitioner shall appear without further notice before the appellate authority on 22.09.2026. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

SA Ct-DP

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.