BharatTaxGST

M/S.Glacio Frozen Foods (P) Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/18412/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01039939202624 June 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
For Petitioner: SMT. HARSHITA V, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. K. HEMAKUMAR, AGA
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order levying tax, interest, and penalty under Section 74(9) of the GST Act, alleging an inadvertent clerical error in Form GSTR-9 led to a tax mismatch. The respondent passed the order ex-parte, stating the petitioner failed to respond to the Show Cause Notice or avail personal hearing opportunities.

Held

The High Court quashed the adjudication order, granting the petitioner another opportunity to file a reply and for the respondent to reconsider. This was conditioned on the petitioner depositing 10% of the demanded tax amount.

Key Issues

Whether an ex-parte adjudication order, based on an alleged inadvertent clerical error in GSTR-9 and non-response to a show cause notice, should be set aside to provide a fresh opportunity to the taxpayer.

Sections Cited

Section 74(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31455 WP No. 18412 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 18412 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S.GLACIO FROZEN FOODS (P) LIMITED GROUND FLOOR NO 18, EARAIAH SAHARA MAHAL, MUNIYAPPA INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, PANTHARAPALYA, NAYANDANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560039 GSTIN -29AAGCG6342Q1ZW REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI MANJUNATHA G (A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT,2013) …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HARSHITA V, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31455 WP No. 18412 of 2026 AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LGSTO -62, NO 642, PIONEER PLAZA, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU - 560098 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. HEMAKUMAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ADJUDICATION ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED 20.12.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN NO. ACCT.LGSTO-62/ DRC- 07/ORDER.NO.19/2025-26 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 74 (9) OF THE GST ACT AT ANNEXURE-A LEVYING TAX, INTEREST AND PENALTY, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31455 WP No. 18412 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the Adjudication Order dated 20.12.2025 [Annexure-A]. This Adjudication Order is premised in the assertion that the Show Cause Notice is issued to the petitioner, but it has filed no response. Ms. Harshita V, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is categorical in stating that the proceedings are concluded because of a mismatch in Form GSTR-9 and this is because the petitioner, while filing the Annual Return in Form GSTR-9, has disclosed an amount of Rs.77,760/- each under CGST and KGST in Table 10 relating to "Supplies/Tax declared through Amendments (+) (net of debit notes)" and that such disclosure was purely an inadvertent clerical and reporting error.

2.

Mr. K. Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard for disposal of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31455 petition examining whether the petitioner is entitled to another reasonable opportunity. The respondent has referred to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC- 01 dated 24.06.2025 being uploaded on the common portal according to the Act without mentioning the other modes of communication of service. The respondent has also referred to an opportunity of personal hearing being extended to the petitioner on 28.07.2025 and 03.12.2025 observing that the petitioner has not availed this opportunity, but without further details of the opportunity so extended.

3.

The petitioner contends that the mismatch in Form GSTR-9 is only because of an inadvertent clerical and reporting error. The petitioner further relies upon the medical records that are produced to state that its Director was under constant medical care when the Show Cause Notice was issued and hence, went unnoticed by the petitioner. When these HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31455 circumstances are considered, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must have another opportunity, and hence, the following.

ORDER

The petition is allowed quashing the Adjudication Order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the respondent [Annexure-A] subject to the following terms.

[a] The proceedings are restored to the respondent for due consideration subject to deposit of 10% of tax amount in demand by 30.07.2026. [b] The petitioner is permitted to file its reply along with the certified copy of this Order with the respondent. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31455 [c] The petitioner shall file such reply by 30.07.2026 and the respondent shall consider the same and then conclude the proceedings by a reasoned order. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

RB

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.