M/S Optiware Optics Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39628 WP No. 26372 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.26372 OF 2018 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S OPTIWARE OPTICS 849 SHOP NO.1, 3^RD STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SMT.JYOTSNA H.DOLLA, W/O SRI.HITESH B DOLLA. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶15

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES KARNATAKA VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, GANDHINAGAR,

¶17

BENGALURU-560 009.

¶18

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT & RECOVERY)-2.5 VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-2, KORAMANGALA,

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 047.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP)

¶22

2 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:39628 WP No. 26372 of 2018

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 07.03.2018 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE PASSED UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE KVAT ACT BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT & RECOVERY)-2.5, BENGALURU FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 IN CAS NO.290405182 - ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶30

" (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the reassessment order dated 07.03.2018 along with demand notice passed under section 39 (1) of the KVAT Act by the Commercial Tax Officer (Audit & Recovery)-2.5, Bengaluru for the year 201112 in CAS No.290405182-Annexure-D;

¶31

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the rectification order dated 07.03.2018 passed under Section 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the Commercial Tax Officer (Audit & Recovery)-2.5, Bengaluru for the year 2012-13 in CAS No.235405297Annexure-E;

¶32

(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the rectification order dated 24.04.2018 along with demand notice passed under Section 69(1) read with 39(1) of the KVAT Act by the Commercial Tax Officer (Audit & Recovery)-2.5, Bengaluru for the year 2012-13 in CAS No.235405297.01- Annexure-F;

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39628 WP No. 26372 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(iv) Issue a writ of certiorari or a declaration in the nature of writ of certiorari declaring that the amendment to Section 40 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax, 2003, by Karnataka Act No.15 of 2017 is arbitrary, irrational, invalid, beyond legislative competence and ultra vires the Constitution of India Annexure-C; (The amendment Act Karnataka Act No.15 of 2017 has been published in the KVAT Act, 2003)

¶36

(v) and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶38

HCGP for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner has got registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, 'the KVAT Act'), vide Annexure - A dated 08.10.2010, which granted registration in its favour under the Composition Tax Registration Scheme. In terms of the aforesaid Composition Tax Registration Certificate in Form VAT 8 under Rule 137(2) of the KVAT Rules, the petitioner is permitted to purchase goods from outside state with a condition that the petitioner shall not sell any goods by way of inter-state as well as exports / stock transfer. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39628 WP No. 26372 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

petitioner being entitled to the benefit of Section 15 of the KVAT Act, the respondent No.3 issued the proposition notice dated 02.02.2018 followed by reassessment orders at Annexures - D and E both dated 07.03.2018 as well as subsequent rectification order

¶43

at Annexure - F dated 24.04.2018, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. In support of its contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

¶44

(i) M/s. Bellor Estates and Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and others - W.P.No.12745/2019 dated 13.11.2019

¶45

(ii) Oriental Cuisines Private Limited, Bangalore

¶46

Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

¶47

(Audit - 5.5.), D.V.O.-5, V.T.K.-2, Bangalore.

¶48

It is submitted that due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, the petitioner could not produce all the relevant documents before the respondents, who have not taken into account or considered or appreciated the provisions contained in Section 15 of the KVAT Act and the judgment of this Court in M/s. Bellor Estates case and

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39628 WP No. 26372 of 2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Oriental Cuisines case supra and has passed the impugned orders, which deserve to be set aside and the matter remitted back to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by providing one more opportunity to the petitioner to furnish additional pleadings, documents, etc., in support of its claim.

¶52

Per contra learned HCGP for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶53

A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the impugned orders at Annexures - D and E will indicate that the respondent No.3 has noticed that relevant documents comprising of the books of accounts, etc., have not been produced by the petitioner for verification. In this context, it is relevant to state that in the light of the specific contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is provided, the petitioner would produce additional pleadings and documents in support of its claim coupled with the fact that the provisions of Section 15 of the KVAT Act as well as the aforesaid judgments of this Court have not been considered by the respondent No.3 in their proper perspective, I deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:39628 WP No. 26372 of 2018

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent No.3

¶58

for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶59

In the result, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶62

(ii) The impugned orders at Annexures - D, E

¶63

and F are hereby set aside and matter remitted back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

¶64

(iii) Petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.3 on 17.11.2025.

¶65

(iv) Liberty is granted in favour of the petitioner to produce pleadings, documents, judgments, etc., before respondent No.3, who shall provide sufficient reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶66

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶67

SV

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68

M/S Optiware Optics v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Optiware Optics v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ningappa G @ Ningappa Savant Vs State of Karnataka

Vinay P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnamurthy B N Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Jordindian Vs Union of India

M/S Trillion Lead Factory Private Limited Vs the Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax

M/S Shiva Traders Vs the State of Karnataka