M/S S And J Associates vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/36054/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01076919202520 January 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV5 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. MARY SAVITHA, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, HCGP

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2944 WP No. 36054 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 36054 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. S AND J ASSOCIATES, (A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN) REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHAJAN JOSEPH, NO.11, DEFENCE GARDEN, NEAR ST.GEORGE HIGH SCHOOL, ANGALAPURA - 560077. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MARY SAVITHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO -57, BENGALURU-560043. NO.669/L, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-9), KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, HCGP) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2944 WP No. 36054 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE ANNEXURE-A ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 IN T.NO. 3024/24-25 DATED 10.02.2025 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LGSTO-57, THE R1 HEREIN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure-A dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. In terms of Annexure-A, the authority has passed an order under Section 73(9) of CGST/SGST Act, 2017 and has raised a demand. The petitioner has also challenged the order at Annexure-B which is an order rejecting the appeal on the ground that appeal was filed belatedly. The petitioner has sought for remitting of the case to respondent No.1 and for an opportunity to be heard before final orders are passed. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2944

2.

The brief facts are that the petitioner had sought for cancellation of GST registration with effect from 31.03.2022. It is further submitted that respondent No.1 further on 10.02.2025 had issued the impugned adjudication order. The petitioner submits that they were not aware of the notices issued as they had sought for cancellation of registration and notices posted in the portal did not come to their notice and accordingly, they did not make out reply to the show-cause notice which has eventually culminated in an order of adjudication. As against such order, appeal is filed though belatedly and the said appeal was rejected only on the ground of delay.

3.

Learned counsel for revenue submits that notices have been issued as is permissible in law and the lapse of the petitioner has resulted in passing of orders. However, it is submitted that the Court may pass appropriate orders taking note that the order was passed without any reply of the petitioner. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2944

4.

Perused the order at Annexure-B which is an order of dismissal of appeal on the ground that the same was filed belatedly. While noticing that the Appellate Authority has no power to condone delay and taking note of the delay in the present case, it would be appropriate to adjudicate upon the order challenged in appeal that is the order at Annexure-A itself. The reason for such an approach is in light of Annexure-A having been passed without any reply on behalf of the assessee who is the petitioner herein.

5.

Though various contentions have been urged, however taking note that the adjudication order is passed on merits in the absence of any reply, it would meet the ends of justice by setting aside the order at Annexure-A and remitting the matter back to respondent No.1 to the stage of post show-cause notice. The petitioner to make out reply to the show-cause notice. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2944

6.

The petitioner to mark appearance before respondent No.1 on 02.02.2026 at 11.30 a.m. In the event, petitioner does not avail of the opportunity and is not able to demonstrate bonafide reasons, the indulgence granted by this Court would stand revoked.

7.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of. All contentions on merits are kept open. (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

MCR

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.