M/S. Omkar Parimal Mandir v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:10015 WP(No.(3429(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(18 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(3429(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., M/S.,OMKAR,PARIMAL,MANDIR, (A,PARTNERSHIP,FIRM), HAVING,ITS,REGISTERED,OFFICE,AT,, TH28,,6 ,MAIN,ROAD,,J.C.,INDUSTRIAL,LAYOUT,,, KANAKAPURA,MAIN,ROAD,,BENGALURU,URBAN,,, KARNATAKA,-,560,062,, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PARTNER,, MR.,ASHWIN,G,SUNKU,, AGED,ABOUT,45,YEARS,, S/O,S,GOPAL, …,PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,VENKATANARAYANA,G.M.,,ADVOCATE), AND: Digitallytisigned

1.,by0VIDYA0G0R THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,OF,, Location:0HIGH COMMERCIAL,TAXES,, COURT0OF LOCAL,GOODS,AND,SERVICES,TAX,OFFICER,-,120,KARNATAKA ST THBMTC,-,TTMC,,1 ,FLOOR,,JAYANAGAR,4 ,,BLOCK,,, BENGALURU,,-,560,011, E-MAIL:,ACCTLGSTO-120@CTD.KA.GOV.IN, …,RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,HEMAKUMAR,,AGA), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, OF, CERTIORARI, DECLARING, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, BEARING, NO., ACCT(LGSTO)-120/DRC-07/2023-24, AND, REFERENCE, NO., ZD2910230351112, VIDE, FORM, GST, DRC, 07, DATED, 27.10.2023, PASSED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT, [ANNEXURE-A],, BEING, VOID,,

ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE SAME 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 The petitioner has called in question the validity of impugned order at Annexure-'A' dated 27.10.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 and also for setting aside of the consequential recovery notice and the petitioner has also sought for reopening of the proceedings and remitting the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.

¶2It is the case of the petitioner that there has been some lapse on the part of the petitioner insofar as disclosure in the GST returns which was faulty. It is submitted that the transactions relating to import of goods were mistakenly shown under the column relating to "import of services". It is further submitted that the petitioner was unable to make out a reply to the Show Cause Notice due to bona fide reasons.

¶3It is also submitted that pursuant to the order of adjudication, the demand of tax of ₹5,65,223.00 has already been debited from the Electronic Credit Ledger. It is submitted that the reconciliation between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B would be demonstrated before the respondent Authority, as the petitioner has sufficient material in support of its assertion that discrepancy as made out does not exist.

¶4Taking note that the order of adjudication at Annexure-'A' dated 27.10.2023 is passed without benefit of any reply on behalf of the petitioner, while noticing that the assertion of petitioner that the petitioner has material to demonstrate the reconciliation between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B and also noticing that tax has been recovered, it would be appropriate to condone the lapse on the part of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to participate in the proceedings from the stage of reply to the Show Cause Notice.

¶5Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'A' dated

27.10.2023 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent Authority to stage of reply to the Show Cause Notice. Consequently, the notice for recovery at Annexure-'F' dated

07.01.2025 is set aside. All contentions are kept open.

¶6In light of setting aside of order at Annexure-'A' dated 27.10.2023, the petitioner to appear before the respondent Authority on 16.03.2026 without further notice. All contentions are kept open.

¶7Needless to state that the amount that is already debited would be subject to the outcome of fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR