M/S Surya Vaibav v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:8916 WP(No.(3019(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(3019(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:( M/S,SURYA,VAIBAV, (FORMERLY,M/S.,BALAGAVI,TRADERS),, A,PROPRIETARY,CONCERN,REGISTERED,UNDER,THE, PROVISION,OF,CGST/SGST,ACT,,2017),, ST RD1 ,FLOOR,,NO.,21,,3 ,MAIN,,NATIONAL,HBCS,OPP, NAVNEETHA,APARTMENT,,PRASHANTH,NAGAR,,, BENGALURU,URBAN,-,560,079.,, (REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PROPRIETOR,, MR.,SUNIL,BALAGAVI,, S/O.,T,B,BALAGAVI,,, AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS), …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,PRAKASH,D.,,ADVOCATE), AND: Digitallytisigned 1., ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX, by STSHARADAVANI 1 ,FLOOR,,TTMC,COMPLEX,,, B Location:0High BMTC,BUS,STAND,,BANASHANKARI,,, Courttiof Karnataka BENGALURU,-,560,070,

2., THE,SUPERINTENDENT,OF,CENTRAL,TAX, ST1 ,FLOOR,,TTMC,COMPLEX,,, BMTC,BUS,STAND,,BANASHANKARI,,, BENGALURU-560,070, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,AKASH,B.,SHETTY,,ADVOCATE), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL,BEARING,NO.,42/24-25,DTD.,30.04.2023,

PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNX-D.QUASH THE CONSEQUENTIAL BANK RECOVERY NOTICE IN C.NO. GEXCOM/SOR/14087/2023-CGST-RANGE-D-WEST-DIV-3 DTD. 21.02.2025 AT ANNX-E ISSUED BY R-2.

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 Akash B Shetty, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner has called in question the validity of the impugned Order-in-Original at Annexure-D. The petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the bank recovery notice at Annexure-E.

¶3The petitioner submits that the Order-in-Original is an ex-parte order and the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of show cause notice, and accordingly was not in a position to make out reply. Petitioner submits that lapse if any, is to be considered to be a bona-fide lapse. It is further submitted that the difference in tax payable as per GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B is a

matter that would be explained and reconciled, if an opportunity is granted.

¶4Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that in normal course the show cause notices are put-up in the portal and accordingly petitioner cannot contend that the order is an ex-parte order and even otherwise, there is no demonstration of diligence by the petitioner.

¶5Despite submission made by the learned counsel for the revenue, it is clear that the impugned Order that is passed is on the basis of in the absence of any reply to the show cause notice and stand on merits by the petitioner. It would be appropriate to condone the lapse of the petitioner and set aside the impugned Order-in-Original at Annexure-D, while remitting the matter to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

¶6Petitioner to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court

Building, Bengaluru. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 09.03.2026.

¶7Needless to state, if on the date fixed petitioner remains absent and does not take benefit of the opportunity granted, the indulgence granted would stand revoked.

¶8In light of the contention that petitioner has not been served with the show cause notice, the respondent revenue to furnish copy of show cause notice within 1 week from date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶9Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3