M/S. Broadvision Services PVT. LTD. vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 28.11.2025 [Annexure-A]. Sri Amit A Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner, emphasizes the following. [a] The petitioner's grievance with the impugned Order would be addressed if there is a remand for reconsideration in the light of the Reply and the documents filed after HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29725 this Court's order dated 23.10.2025 in the writ petition in W.P. No.30982/2025. [b] The petitioner has filed the petition in W.P. No.30982/2025 with the receipt of the Show Cause Notice dated 06.06.2025 for proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [c] This Court was persuaded to dispose of such petition with liberty to the petitioner to file Reply along with documents directing the Authorities to consider the same and then proceed in accordance with law because of the statement made on behalf of the Authorities that if the Reply and documents are filed, the same would be considered. [d] The petitioner has informed the second respondent about the outcome of the petition and the petitioner has also filed HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29725 documents, but the impugned Adjudication Order is without reference to any of these including the Orders of this Court on 23.10.2025 in the writ petition in W.P. No. 30982/2025. 2. Sri K Hemakumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents, submits [i] that the Show Cause Notice is actually dated 19.03.2025, [ii] that the petitioner in W.P. No.30982/2025, has impugned the Communication on 06.06.2025 which is a reminder and [iii] that this Court may consider that the petition is silent about the details of the communication of this Court's Order dated 23.10.2025 in the writ petition in W.P. No.30982/2025 to the second respondent.
The rival submissions apart, what emerges is that a statement is made before this Court in the writ petition in W.P. No.30982/2025 that the petitioner is at liberty to file Reply and documents HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29725 which would be considered for a complete adjudication but the proceedings are concluded without even a reference to the Order and the documents that are filed. The petitioner is categorical in stating that a Reply and documents have been filed.
This Court, in the circumstances, is of the view that there must be interference with the impugned Order dated 28.11.2025 to restore the proceedings with liberty to the petitioner, without further notice, to file a copy of this Order with all the other documents enclosing a copy of the Reply already filed with the second respondent. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed-in-part. The impugned Order dated 28.11.2025 [Annexure-A] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the second respondent with liberty as aforesaid. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29725 [b] The petitioner, without any further notice shall appear before the second respondent on 27.07.2026 with a copy of this Order and all the other documents enclosing a copy of the Reply already filed. (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.