BharatTaxGST

M/S. Valente Lifespace Creators PVT. LTD. vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Original PDF →
WP/8393/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01018841202613 March 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI ANJAMAN GHULATI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAY.S, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI ARAVIND CHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI K HEMA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Before: SHRI ASHOK SHARMA

The present petition has been filed calling for the records from respondent No.1 as regards proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and to set aside the same as being contrary to Section 6(2)(a) of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parallel proceedings have been initiated for the same period on HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15092 an identical issue by the Department of Commercial Taxes, Government of Karnataka ie., respondent No.1 as is evidenced from Annexure-A, on the one hand and parallel proceedings also have been initiated by respondent No.2 for the same period on the same issue, as is evidenced from the show cause notice at Annexure-B.

3.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the Court may pass appropriate orders in light of the assertion that parallel proceedings cannot be permitted to proceeded with.

4.

Sri. Aravind V Chavan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the proceedings initiated by the Central Government are earlier in point of time and may be permitted to be proceeded with. The proceedings by the Central Government have been initiated by way of investigation on 13.08.2024 and the show cause notice was issued on 11.12.2025. It is noticed, on the other hand that the State Government has issued intimation on 13.02.2026. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15092

5.

In light of the parallel proceedings initiated, it will be appropriate that the proceedings initiated at an earlier point of time by respondent No.2 is permitted to be proceeded with and the proceedings before respondent No.1 would stand abated. All contentions are kept open.

6.

Accordingly, the proceedings by respondent No.2 are permitted to progress in accordance with law.

7.

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

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.