BharatTaxGST

M/S Pragathi Enterprises vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/37972/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01082119202513 January 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV5 pages
For Petitioner: SMT. BHARGAVI S V., 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:1863 WP No. 37972 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. 37972 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S PRAGATHI ENTERPRISES NEAR NENJUNDESWARA PETOL BUNK K G HALLI TAKEL KOLAR, KARNATAKA-563 137 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI. SRINIVAS KEMPANAHALLI EARAPPA … PETITIONER (BY SMT. BHARGAVI S V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAXES OFFICE -180 BINDU BUILDING, NEAR DOME LIGHT CIRCLE KOLAR, KARNATAKA - 563 101 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, HCGP) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1863 WP No. 37972 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE LIKE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ADJUDICATION ORDER- FOR THE PERIOD 2019-20 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.08.2024 VIDE NO.ACCT/LGSTO-180/ADJUDICATION/ORDER/CREDIT NOTES/ 2024-25, AND THE DRC-07 BEARING REF NO. ZD290824102698X PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE - C AND C1 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

Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the adjudication order for the period 2019-20, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-C.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the order of adjudication passed under Section 73(9) read with Section 75, Section 122, Section 50 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 142 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, was an order that was passed ex-parte. It is submitted that the notices were not served. It is further submitted that though notices were stated to have been sent through HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1863 email to the email ID of the petitioner, petitioner is not familiar with electronic communication and accordingly, not being aware of the show cause notice has not replied to the same. It is further submitted that the Court may take note of the bonafide lapse and set aside the order of adjudication and remand the matter for adjudication afresh reserving liberty to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice.

3.

Perused the order of adjudication dated 29.08.2024. Learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions submits that notice has been issued to the registered email ID, which details are available in the GST registration documents and it is the burden of the tax payer to take appropriate steps to make out reply.

4.

Taking note that the order of adjudication is passed without any reply of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1863 make out his reply to the show cause notice which would meet the ends of justice.

5.

Accordingly, taking note that the impugned order of adjudication at Annexure-C is an order that is passed ex-parte, in light of the discussion made above, it would be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-C and remit the matter to the stage of reply to show cause notice. The reply to the show cause notice to be made within a period of 2 weeks from today.

6.

Petitioner to be present before respondent No.2 along with reply to the show cause notice on 28.01.2026 at 11.30 a.m. Needless to state, if the petitioner does not avail of the opportunity by presenting himself before respondent No.2 on the date fixed, relief of reopening the proceedings extended to the petitioner would stand recalled. In light of the lapse of the petitioner, petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Authority. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1863

7.

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

VP

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.