M/S Sri Mallikarjuna Engineering Works v. The Union of India

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:9859 WP(No.(1187(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.(1187(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., M/S,SRI,MALLIKARJUNA,ENGINEERING,WORKS, NO.25/1B,,SIDDAPPA,LAYOUT, CHURCH,ROAD,,, BOMMASANDRA,INDUSTRIAL,AREA,, BENGALURU,RURAL,,, BENGALURU-560,099, REP.,BY,ITS,PROPRIETOR, SRI.MOHAN,KUMAR,CHODIPANE, PROPRIETORSHIP,CONCERNED, …,PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,VISWANATH,PATIL.,,ADVOCATE), AND:Digitally signedtiby VIJAYA0P Location: 1., THE,UNION,OF,INDIA, HIGH COURT0OF REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,FINANCE,SECRETARY, KARNATAKA MINISTRY,OF,FINANCE, DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE, NEW,DELHI-110,001.,

2., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,, FINANCE,SECRETARY,, VIDHANA,SOUDHA,,, BENGALURU-560,001., e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:9859 WP(No.(1187(of(2026

3., THE,COMMISSIONER,OF,COMMERCIAL,TAXES,, IN,KARNATAKA, VANIJYA,THERIGE,KARYALAYA, ST1 ,MAIN,ROAD,,GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560,009.,

4., THE,COMMERCIAL,TAX,OFFICER, LGSTO-26,,DGSTO-4, ST1 ,FLOOR,,V.T.K.-2,,RAJENDRA,NAGAR,, 80,FT.,ROAD,,KORAMANGALA,, BENGALURU-560,047, …,RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,MADANAN,PILLAI,,CGC,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI,HEMAKUMAR,,AGA,FOR,R2,TO,R4), ***, , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, QUASH, THE, ADJUDICATION, ORDER, DATED, 15.04.2024, FOR, THE, TAX, PERIOD, 2018-19, (ANNEXURE-B), CTO/LGSTO-26/DRC-07/313VSIA/66/24-25, AND, DECLARE, AND, STRIKE, DOWN, SECTION, 16(2)(C), OF, CGST, /SGST, ACTS, AS, BEING, UNCONSTITUTIONAL,, THE, SAME, BEING, VIOLATIVE, OF, ARTICLES,14,AND,19,AND,19(1)(G),OF,THE,CONSTITUTIONS, OF,INDIA,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 Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order of adjudication at Annexure-B dated 15.04.2024. Petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act.

¶2When the matter is taken up for consideration, petitioner submits that he does not intend to insist on the prayer to declare Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act as being violative of the Constitutional provisions.

¶3Insofar as the plea regarding setting aside of the order at Annexure-B, it is contented that the order of adjudication is an ex-parte order and the petitioner did not have the benefit of reply to the show cause notice of the department. It is further submitted that insofar as the reconciliation between GSTR-2A and the input credit claimed in GSTR-3B, petitioner has material to demonstrate that the discrepancy as pointed out does not exist. It is submitted that the Court may set aside the

order and remand the matter back to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

¶4Sri. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the order is passed ex-parte only due to the lapse of the petitioner in not diligently participating in the proceedings. However, it is submitted that if the Court were to pass any order of remand, the Court may insist on the petitioner to pay 10% of the tax demand.

¶5Taking note that the order passed is an ex-parte order without the benefit of stand on merits of the petitioner to the show cause notice and also noticing the stand of the petitioner that they would be in a position to explain the discrepancy between the input tax credit as reflected in GSTR-2A and the input tax credit claimed under GSTR-3B, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of adjudication and remit the matter back to

respondent No. 4 for adjudication from the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

¶6Accordingly, the order at Annexure-B is set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice in terms of the observations made above. Petitioner to appear before respondent No. 4 without further notice on 16.03.2026. Needless to state, if the petitioner is absent on the said date, petitioner would forfeit the indulgence granted by this Court. Petitioner to pay 10% of the tax demand.

¶7Accordingly, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP