Gvs Engineering And Construction vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the proceedings dated 24.02.2026 [Annexure-D] under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’]. The respondent, under these proceedings, has blocked the Input Tax Credit [ITC] of Rs.17,91,932/- on the ground that M/s Ganesh Traders is found to be a Bill Trader involved in issuance of fake invoices and that this trader's business premises is not in existence. The respondent’s Order blocking the ITC is after issuance of the Endorsement dated 04.02.2026. Sri K M Shivayogiswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it was incumbent upon the respondent to issue notice in view of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27442 decision of this Court in the Writ Appeal in W.A. No.100425/2023, wherein it is observed that Notice must be read into the statutory scheme to ensure there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. Sri K Hemakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, does not dispute this proposition, but he contends that this Court may not interfere with the Notices issued as per Annexures-B and B1 as it is independent and the petitioner must participate in the proceedings. In response, Sri K M Shivayogiswamy submits that the petitioner confines the grievance to the proceedings dated 24.02.2026. On a careful consideration of all these circumstances and in view of the proposition that stands settled by this Court's afore decision, there must be limited interference subject to terms. Hence, the following. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27442 ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part, and the proceedings dated 24.02.2026 on the file of the respondent is quashed. [b] The respondent is directed to unblock the petitioner's electronic credit ledger immediately on receipt of a certified copy of this order. [c] The respondent will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure required after the decision of the Division Bench in such proceedings. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
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.