M/S Merck Life Science Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:13391 WP(No.(6156(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(4 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(6156(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., M/S,MERCK,LIFE,SCIENCE,PRIVATE,LIMITED, HAVING,OFFICE,AT,NO.50A,,RING,ROAD,, PEENYA,2ND,PHASE,, BENGALURU,, KARNATAKA,-,560,058,, COMPANY,REGISTERED,UNDER,, COMPANIES,ACT,,1956, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, AUTHORIZED,SIGNATORY,, CHETHAN,MANJUNATHA,, AGED,ABOUT,39,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,NO.818,, Digitally signedtiby PARVA,,4TH,BLOCK,, VIDYA0G0R 6TH,STAGE,,BANASHANKARI,,Location: HIGH0COURT CHIKKEGOWDANAPALYA,, OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU,-,560,062., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,G.,SHIVADASS,,SENIOR,ADVOCATE,FOR, SRI.,PRASHANTH,SABARISH,SHIVADASS.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., ADDITIONAL,COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX,, BENGALURU,NORTH-WEST,COMMISSIONERATE,, OFFICE,OF,THE,COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX,, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:13391 WP(No.(6156(of(2026 CENTRAL,EXCISE,AND,SERVICE,TAX,, GST,COMMISSIONERATE,, BENGALURU,NORTH-WEST,,2ND,FLOOR,,, SOUTH,WING,, B.M.T.C,BUS,STAND,COMPLEX,, SHIVAJINAGAR,, BENGALURU,, KARNATAKA,-,560,051.,

2., SUPERINTENDENT,, OFFICE,OF,THE,COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX, BENGALURU,NORTH-WEST,COMMISSIONERATE,, 2ND,FLOOR,,SOUTH,WING,, B.M.T.C,BUS,STAND,COMPLEX,, SHIVAJINAGAR,, BENGALURU,, KARNATAKA,-,560,051., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,ARAVIND,V,CHAVAN,,ADVOCATE), ***, , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, (A), TO, ISSUE, ORDER(S),, DIRECTIONS,, WRIT(S), IN, THE, NATURE, OF, CERTIORARI,OR,ANY,OTHER,WRIT,QUASHING,THE,ORDER,IN, ORIGINAL, BEARING, SL.NO.54/ADC/BNW/2024-25/BNW, HAVING, DIN-20250157YX000000B2DD, DATED, 27.01.2025, ALONG, WITH, DRC-07, DATED, 03.02.2025, PASSED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.1, ENCLOSED, AT, ANNEXURE-A, AND, ANNEXURE,A1,RESPECTIVELY,TO,THE,EXTENT,PREJUDICIAL,TO, THE, INTEREST, OF, THE, PETITIONER, AS, BEING, WITHOUT, AUTHORITY,OF,LAW,AND,WITHOUT,JURISDICTION,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 called in question the validity of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A and A1. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the notice of demand for arrears at Annexure-B. Certain other reliefs have also been sought for. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 27.01.2025 and the summary order on

03.02.2025.

¶2Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was required to file an appeal but has approached this Court in light of the delay, as the Appellate Authority may not be in a position to condone the delay extending the period of 90 days and extendable period of one month thereafter. It is admitted that the non-filing of the appeal was due to lapse of the internal auditor and necessary steps have been taken as against the auditor in terms of the show-cause notice issued at Annexure-X. It is submitted that such lapse of

internal auditor has resulted in the present circumstances, warranting filing of a writ petition before this Court.

¶3It is fairly admitted that the grievance requires to be adjudicated by way of an appeal instead of the present proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know of the passing of the order only on the recovery notice being issued on 23.12.2025. It is submitted that thereafter, upon enquiry, the internal auditor has consented to the lapse on his part. It is to be noticed that the request of the petitioner is only to enable him to file an appeal and to direct the Appellate Authority to take up the appeal by overlooking the delay.

¶4The power under Article 226 could be exercised in circumstances where justice would be a casualty. Taking note of the delay of about nine months and also noticing that the petitioner fairly admits the lapse of the internal auditor, against whom certain internal proceedings have been initiated, it will be appropriate to consider the

financial implications and undue hardship if the order is allowed to stay and in light of the same pass appropriate directions.

¶5Accordingly, in the peculiar facts of the case, if the appeal is filed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the appeal to be entertained without raising any objection on ground of delay. All other contentions are kept open.

¶6The petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court Building, Bengaluru.

¶7Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the order is passed under the peculiar facts of the present case. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE SHS