M/S. Ameena Traders vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Ameena Traders, challenged an order in Form GST DRC-07 issued under Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act, blocking Input Tax Credit and demanding tax, interest, and penalty. The order was based on the premise that the petitioner's transactions were with a non-existing entity issuing invoices without actual supply, and was passed after the petitioner failed to respond to intimation and show cause notices, which the petitioner claimed were only uploaded on the portal and not personally served.
Held
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated 02.06.2026, restoring the proceedings to the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner was granted a final opportunity to file all necessary documents by 20.07.2026, subject to depositing 10% of the demanded amount by the same date.
Key Issues
Whether an assessment order passed ex-parte due to non-response to notices uploaded only on the GST portal should be quashed, and if the petitioner should be granted a fresh opportunity to prove the genuineness of transactions for Input Tax Credit claims.
Sections Cited
Section 16(2)(c), Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 02.06.2026 in Form GST DRC-07 [Annexure – C] under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, the 'CGST Act']/KGST Act']. The petitioner's Input Tax Credit [ITC] is blocked, and the petitioner is called upon to pay tax with interest and penalty for the tax period 2020 - 2021 on the ground that the petitioner's transaction is with a non-existing entity which is not conducting business from the place of registration and is issuing invoices without actual supply of goods.
The petitioner is issued with intimation in DRC-01A on 10.07.2024 and with a Show Cause Notice in Form DRC-01 on 31.01.2026. The petitioner has not responded to the intimation or the notice, and the second respondent has therefore concluded that the petitioner's transactions are with a non- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30914 existing firm and that the returns are filed based on invoices without the underlying supply.
Mr. K. M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that both the intimation and the Show Cause Notice are only uploaded on the Portal and the petitioner is not served with these, and on merits of the petitioners' grievance, the learned counsel submits that the supplier's registration is cancelled with effect from 01.02.2021 and the petitioner's business with these entities is prior to this as could be seen from the other annexures enclosed to the petition. Crucially, the learned counsel submits that if the petitioner is extended an opportunity, the necessary documents would be filed to justify the genuineness of the transactions.
Mr. K. Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice to the respondents, is heard. The question for HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30914 consideration is whether this Court must interfere to extend another opportunity. The petitioner cannot contest that the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A and Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 were issued on 10.07.2024 and 31.01.2026 respectively but the petitioner has failed to respond and the explanation is that the petitioner is not served with the notices otherwise apart from uploading on the Portal. It is also possible that the intimation is delivered only on the registered E-mail. The petitioner seeks opportunity to produce documents to show the genuineness of the transaction for the period prior to the date of cancellation of the supplier's registration.
In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that there must be interference to extend another opportunity to the petitioner to show cause but on terms which must include deposit of a reasonable amount subject to outcome and the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30914 timeline within which the documents must be filed. In the light of the afore, the following. ORDER
[a] The petition is allowed in-part.
[b] The impugned order dated 02.06.2026 is quashed restoring the proceedings to the second respondent with liberty to the petitioner to file all documents without further notice by 20.07.2026. [c] The petitioner shall also deposit by this date 10% of the amount in demand subject to the final orders in the restored proceedings including orders on set off if the petitioner succeeds and shows cause against the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST/KGST Act. (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.