M/S Mahalakshmi Agencies v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:12852 WP(No.(6872(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( RDDATED(THIS(THE(3 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(6872(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:( M/S.,MAHALAKSHMI,AGENCIES,,, NDNO.8,,2 ,CROSS,,GB,LANE,,, COTTONPET,,BANGALORE,URBAN,,, BENGALURU-560,053., (A,PROPRIETARY,CONCERN,, OWNED,BY,MOHAN,LAL,,PROPRIETOR,,, S/O,CHHOGARAM,,AGED,ABOUT,59,YEARS,, AUTHORISED,REPRESENTATIVE), …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,Y.C.,SHIVAKUMAR,,ADVOCATE), AND: Digitally signedtiby THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,OF,COMMERCIAL, VIJAYA0P TAXES,,LGSTO-11,, Location: TH HIGH0COURT 6 ,FLOOR,,M.M.,TRUST,BUILDING,,, OF A.V.ROAD,,CHAMARAJPET,,,KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560,018., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,K.,HEMA,KUMAR,,AGA), , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO,, QUASH,THE,EX-PARTE,ORDER,UNDER,SECTION,73,OF,THE,GST, ACTS,, DATED, 22-11-2025,, BEARING, NO.ACCT/LGSTO, - 11/2024-25,,PASSED,BY,THE,RESPONDENT,,AS,AT,ANNEXURE-A,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 Sri. K. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent.

¶2The petitioner has called in question the validity of the order passed under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings have culminated in an ex-parte order. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of the order for rectification at Annexure-G1, whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking rectification also came to be dismissed.

¶3The application for rectification came to be rejected on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on face of the record nor was there any arithmetic/clerical error, while also noticing that the

assessee had failed to participate in the proceedings relating to assessment.

¶4Perused the order at Annexure-A. The authorities have proceeded on the premise that there were certain discrepancies in the Input Tax Credit (ITC) and there was no reconciliation between GSTR-3B as compared to an ITC available in GSTR-2A. The said order is passed without benefit of any reply by the petitioner to the show-cause notice.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in a position to produce material and demonstrate the reconciliation between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A.

¶6In light of the assertion that non-reply to the show-cause notice was due to bona-fide reasons, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to take its stand on merits after setting aside the order at Annexure-A. The petitioner may be put on terms in light of lapse, by

directing the petitioner to make payment of 10% of the demand, while observing that such payment may be subject to filing adjudication.

¶7Taking note that the order of adjudication at Annexure-A itself is an ex-parte order, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the stage of reply to show-cause notice. In light of setting aside of the order at Annexure-A, the order dismissing the rectification application does not survive for consideration and is set aside.

¶8Petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on 07.04.2026. Petitioner to make payment of 10% of the demand, before 07.04.2026.

¶9Accordingly, petition is disposed of. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR