BharatTaxGST

Vignesh Healthcare PVT LTD vs. Assistant Commissioner

Original PDF →
WP/10783/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01024279202609 April 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. VIGNESH A. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19645 WP No. 10783 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 10783 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: VIGNESH HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CIN: U51900KA2011PTC060633, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6, CONNAUGHT ROAD, TASKER TOWN, QUEENS ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REKHA SREENIVAS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-021, NO.19/2, 2ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED UNDER SECTION 73(9) OF THE CGST/KGST ACT (REFERENCE NO.ACCT/LGSTO-21/ ADJ-01/2023-24) BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19645 WP No. 10783 of 2026 SAME, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 75(4), VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND NON-EST IN LAW, THE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - "A" AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER Sri. K. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent.

2.

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had no notice of the proceedings except for the order being uploaded in the additional tab during the period of March-2024. Subsequent to which, petitioner has taken steps to file a rectification application in the month of April-2024. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the representative of the petitioner entity is a widow and not being communicated of the proceedings, could not take HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19645 part in the adjudication which has culminated in an exparte order.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lapse is bona-fide and the Court may condone the lapse by putting the petitioner on terms and may set aside the order of adjudication and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. It is further submitted that the alleged difference in tax liability declared in GSTR-3B vis-à-vis GSTR-1 returns, is a discrepancy that does not exist and petitioner would demonstrate the same, if given an opportunity.

5.

Taking note of the said stand of the petitioner and that the order passed is an exparte order, it would it be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-A and remit the matter back for fresh consideration before the respondent. The petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on 13.05.2026. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19645

6.

In light of setting aside of the order of adjudication, the order of garnishee at Annexure-J is set aside. The petitioner to pay 35% of the tax demand i.e., Rs.99,434.65/-. Needless to state, such payment would be subject to adjudication to be made. Such payment to be made before the date fixed. 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.