M/S Lokesh Works Contractor v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:11637 WP(No.(39091(of(2025 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(25 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(39091(OF(2025((T-RES) BETWEEN:( M/S.,LOKESH,WORKS,CONTRACTOR,, NO.01,,HUTHAGERE,VILLAGE,AND,POST,,, MADDUR,-,571,428,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PROPRIETOR,,, SHRI,HOOTHAGERE,ERANNA,LOKESH,, AGED,42,YEARS., …PETITIONER, (BY,SMT.,BHARGAVI,S.V.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,COMMISSIONER,OF,COMMERCIAL,TAXES,, VANIJYA,THERIGE,BHAVAN,,, GANDHINAGAR,,, Digitally BENGALURU,-,560,009.,signedtiby VIJAYA0P Location: 2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,OF,LOCAL,, HIGH GOODS,AND,SERVICE,TAX,, COURT0OF LGSTO,-,210,,CHIKKAMANDYA,KERE,,,KARNATAKA COMMERCIAL,TAX,OFFICES,,, VIVEKANANDA,NAGARA,,, NAGAMANGALA,ROAD,,MANDYA,, KARNATAKA,-,571,402., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,K.,HEMA,KUMAR,,AGA), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, ADJUDICATION,ORDER,FOR,THE,PERIOD,2020-21,VIDE,ORDER,

DATED

04.02.2025 VIDE NO.ACCT/LGST-210/MDY/T.NO./ 2024-25 AND THE DRC-07 BEARING REF NO.ZD290225021527G PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-C AND C1 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 The petitioner has challenged the order of adjudication at Annexures-C and C1 for the year 2020-21 as well as the order of adjudication for the year 2021-2022 at Annexure-D. The petitioner has also sought for restraint as regards the recovery proceedings are concerned.

¶2It is the contention of the petitioner that the orders of adjudication are passed without benefit of any stand of the respondent on merits. It is further submitted that non-reply to the show-cause notice is due to bona-fide reasons and this Court may set aside the order and remit the matter back for reconsideration while affording

an opportunity to the petitioner to take their stand on merits.

¶3Perused the order at Annexure-C. Admittedly, the order of adjudication is an ex-parte order insofar as the authority has proceeded to decide the matter on the basis of materials available with the authority, as the petitioner had not made out any reply to the show-cause notice. The order, however, narrates that there has been communication by way of email to the email ID mentioned through the GST portal. It is noticed that the ground on which proceedings were initiated is on the premise of violation of Section 9, Section 12, Section 15, Section 37, Section 39 and Section 49 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/ State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if an opportunity is given, petitioner would be able to demonstrate and meet the grounds as made out in the show-cause notice.

¶5Perused the order at Annexure-D. Even as regards the order at Annexure-D, identical grounds as referred to at Annexure-C constitute the grounds for proceedings having culminated in an order of adjudication. Petitioner would reiterate that they have material to demonstrate and meet each of the grounds as raised.

¶6Though the orders indicate that there has been communication of the notice through the GST portal, however, taking note of the consequences that would visit the petitioner if the orders are allowed to stand and in light of the stand of the petitioner that they are in a position to meet the grounds made out in the show-cause notice, as referred to in the order of adjudication would meet ends of justice by setting aside the orders Annexures-C, C1 and D. Matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice with respect to both the financial years of 2020-21 and 2021-22.

¶7The petitioner to make out reply to the show-cause notice. Petitioner to be present before the 2nd respondent without fresh notice on 23.03.2026.

¶8It is made clear, if the petitioner remains absent on the date fixed the indulgence granted by this Court would stand revoked. Petitioner to pay 10% of the tax demand for each of the years referred to above. All contentions are kept.

¶9In light of the order of adjudication being set aside, the recovery proceedings automatically stand set aside and the attachment as evidenced at Annexure-E is required to be rescinded by the authorities by way of appropriate communication immediately on receipt of certified copy of the order. Accordingly petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR