Sri G S Bhanuprakash vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/28645/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01061767202530 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. PAVITHRA C., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43680 WP No. 28645 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 28645 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: SRI G. S. BHANUPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, CIVIL CONTRACTOR REP. BY SRI GOPALPURA, SIDDEGOWDA BHANUPRAKASH, S/O BHANUPRAKASH PARAMESHWARA, ADDRESS: H NO. KASABA HOBLI, GOPALPURA VILLAGE AND PO, MANDYA – 571 402 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVITHRA C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 009 2. THE OFFICE OF ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX LGSTO-210 CHIKKAMANDYA KERE,COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICES VIVEKANAND NAGARA, NAGAMANGALA ROAD, MANDYA – 571 402 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 29.02.2024 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO. ACCT/LGSTO- 210/MDY/T.NO.2740/2023-2024 AND THE DRC-07 BEARING REF NO. ZD290324013488A, ISSUED BY 2ND Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43680 WP No. 28645 of 2025 RESPONDENT IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE- E AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or in the like nature of Certiorari quashing the Ex-Parte order dated 29.02.2024 passed by 2nd respondent vide No. ACCT/LGSTO-210/MDY/T.NO.2740/2023-2024 and the DRC-07 bearing ref no. ZD290324013488A, issued by 2nd respondent is herewith enclosed as ANNEXURE – E. (ii) Issue Writ of Mandamus and directing the Respondents to consider the returns filed by the Petitioner are correct and grant Input Tax benefit claimed by the petitioner AND (iii) Issue Writ of Prohibition, not to proceed further steps or measures or any such kind of initiatives pertaining to recovery(s) over the impugned the Ex-parte order dated 29.02.2024 passed by 2nd respondent vide No. ACCT/LGSTO-210/MDY/T.NO.2740/2023-2024, ZD290324013488A and the DRC-07 bearing ref no., issued by 2nd respondent is herewith enclosed as ANNEXURE - E. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43680 (iv) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

A perusal of material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2 issued an intimation notice under Form GST DRC –01A dated 15.03.2023 to the petitioner, who did not issue any reply/response to the same. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice dated 19.05.2023 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017. Since the petitioner did not submit his reply to the said show cause notice also, the respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned orders dated 27.07.2023 and 29.02.2024 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 confirming the total demand of Rs.1,14,072/- and Rs.47,720/- respectively, including the tax, interest and penalty.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices were not served on the petitioner and hence couldn't submit replies/ documents to neither the pre-intimation notice nor HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43680 the show-cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly, couldn’t contest the proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner having no option has approached this Court by way of the present petition interalia contending that the inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and submits that if one more opportunity is provided, by setting aside the impugned order, the petitioner would submit a reply to the show-cause notice and contest the proceedings.

6.

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices were not served on the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner did not file its reply/ documents culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43680

8.

Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2024 and 29.02.2024 remitting the matter back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show cause notice dated 19.03.2023. 9. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned orders dated 27.07.2023 and 29.02.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act, 2017 are hereby set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting its HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43680 reply to the notice dated 19.03.2023 issued under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017. (iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.2 on 27.11.2025 without awaiting further notice from the respondent No.2. (v) The liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the first respondent who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law.

(vi) In the event, the Petitioner does not appear before the respondent No.2 on 27.11.2025 as stated supra, present order shall stand automatically recalled without further orders. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

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.