BharatTaxGST

M/S Sudha Sales Corporation vs. State Of Karnataka

Original PDF →
WP/1084/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01002515202620 January 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY, 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:2943 WP No. 1084 of 2026 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. 1084 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S SUDHA SALES CORPORATION, NO.4/1, W.H. HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, NO.4, P.P. LANE, S P ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. REGISTERED UNDER THE GST ACT, 2017 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI VEERMARAM PUROHIT, AGED 42-YEARS) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT)-3.1, DGSTO-03, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, HCGP) Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2943 WP No. 1084 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION DECLARING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16(2) (C) OF CGST ACT/SGST ACT, 2017 AS BEING ILLEGAL, UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY AND THEREFORE TO BE STRUCK, DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 300A 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 validity of the order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-C. A perusal of the order at Annexure-C would indicate that the order has been passed in the absence of any reply to the observations made by the authority.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bonafide reasons, reply could not be made out.

3.

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the revenue submits that notices were HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2943 served and the lapse in not making out reply to the observations raised was solely attributed on the petitioner.

4.

Perused the order at Annexure-C and noticing that the proceedings are culminated in an order in the absence of any reply on behalf of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly, accepting the bonafideness of the lapse, it would be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-C and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 at the stage of post show-cause notice.

5.

The petitioner to make out reply to the show- cause notice and appear before the authority and participate diligently in the proceedings. The petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 04.02.2026. Needless to state, if the petitioner does not avail of such opportunity, the indulgence granted by the Court would stand revoked. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2943

6.

All contentions are kept open. Taking note of the lapse on part of the petitioner, the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of. (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.