BharatTaxGST

M/S Informart (INDIA) Private Limited vs. The Asst Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/38828/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01081528202513 January 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV5 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. Y.C. SHIVAKUMAR., 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:1952 WP No. 38828 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 38828 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S INFORMART (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.99, INFOMART TECH PARK, 5TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956. (A PRIVATE LTD. COMPANY REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR SMT. ANJALI AGARWAL W/O SRI DEVESH AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.C. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT) -4.8, DGSTO-4, CABIN NO.09, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) -4, NO.640, 6TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, HCGP) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1952 WP No. 38828 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE EX- PARTE ORDER UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE CGST ACT/KGST ACT, 2017 READ WITH SECTION 20 OF IGST ACT, 2017 BEARING FILE NO.ACCT (AUDIT)-4.8/DGSTO-04/73-24/23-24 (T.NO.692/23-24), DATED 30-03-2024, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-1 HEREIN, AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND TO RELEGATE THE MATTER TO THE LEVEL OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 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 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, and has sought for relegation of the matter to the stage of reply to show cause notice. Certain other reliefs are also sought insofar as order passed rejecting the appeal, in Form GST APL-04 at Annexure-A. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1952

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of adjudication at Annexure-A is passed ex-parte and submits that an opportunity may be granted for the petitioner to place the reply to the show cause notice. It is further submitted that the order of rejection of appeal requires to be set aside, as the Appellate Authority has taken a very conservative view of limitation and there are bona-fide reasons to explain the delay which has not been taken note of.

3.

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has not availed of opportunity and the petitioner is solely responsible for the lapse.

4.

While noticing that the order of adjudication which is passed, is an ex-parte order, which would be made out on perusal of the same and taking note of the consequences that have flowed from such ex-parte order, it would be appropriate to afford the petitioner an HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1952 opportunity to take stand on merits by way of reply to show cause notice by putting the petitioner on terms.

5.

Accordingly, while it would not be necessary to enter into the correctness or otherwise of the Appellate order which was adjudicated only on the aspect of delay, it would be appropriate to look into the correctness of the order at Annexure-A itself. In light of the observation made above, Annexure-A is set aside and matter is remitted to the stage of reply to show cause notice.

6.

Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 on 02.02.2026. Needless to state, that if the petitioner fails to appear on the said date, petitioner would be forfeiting the right to participate in the proceedings and the order of setting aside of the order of adjudication at Annexure-A would be set aside.

7.

Petitioner to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- for the lapse on his part. Such cost to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1952

8.

Accordingly, petition is disposed of. All contentions are kept. (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.