BharatTaxGST

M/S Manish Fashions vs. The State Of Karnataka

Original PDF →
WP/9230/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01020192202602 April 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. K.M. SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17976 WP No. 9230 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9230 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S MANISH FASHIONS, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, NO.7, SRI BANESHWARA COMPLEX, BT STREET, A S CHAR STREET CROSS, BANGALORE - 560 053. REGISTERED UNDER THE CGST ACT. (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SUSHILA, AGED 40 YEARS). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.M. SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-11, 6TH FLOOR, M.M.TRUST BUILDING, A.V. ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALURU - 560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17976 WP No. 9230 of 2026 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION DECLARING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16(2) (C) OF CGST ACT/SGST ACT, 2017 AS BEING ILLEGAL, UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY AND THEREFORE TO BE STRUCK, DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 300A 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 Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-D. A perusal of the order at Annexure-D would indicate that the order of adjudication has been passed which in-effect is an ex-parte order.

3.

A perusal of the order would indicate that the authority upon scrutiny of returns has noticed that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17976 petitioner had claimed excess of Input Tax Credit in GSTR-3B when compared to the declaration made by the supplier in GSTR-2A for the relevant period. It is further observed in the impugned order that though the petitioner was provided with an opportunity to file explanation, petitioner has not availed of such opportunity. Accordingly, in the absence of any reply to the show-cause, the authority has proceeded to complete the adjudication on the basis of material available. It is not in dispute that the order passed is an ex-parte order.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if an opportunity is granted, the petitioner would meet the grounds raised in the show-cause notice and demonstrate that the alleged discrepancy between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A does not exist and would place material in that regard.

5.

In light of the said stand by the petitioner that they would demonstrate that the alleged discrepancy does HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17976 not exist, it would meet the ends of justice by setting aside the order at Annexure-D by remitting the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration from the stage of reply to show-cause notice.

6.

Accordingly, the order at Annexure-D is set aside and the matter is remitted to the stage of reply to show-cause notice. The petitioner to make out reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 without any further notice on 04.05.2026. 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.