M/S Manish Enterprises Vs Union of India

M/S MANISH ENTERPRISES NO.144/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, KILARI ROAD, NEAR C V BHANDARI SCHOOL, BENGALURU – 560 053 (REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SHRI. MANESH UDAI SINGH, S/O. UDAI SINGH TATER, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. CHIDANANDA URS B. G., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA

¶14

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

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶16

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 1^ST FLOOR, NBCC PLAZA-1, SECTOR-5, PUSHP VIHAR NEW DELHI – 110 017

¶17

THE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX COUNCIL, 5^TH FLOOR, TOWER-II JEEVAN BHARATI BUILDING, JANPATH ROAD, CONNAUGHT PALACE, NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶18

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT)-3.8 DGSTO-3, 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC BUILIDNG

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:41788 WP No. 26907 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK,

¶23

BENGALURU – 560 011

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. NAGENDRA A., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. HEMA KUMAR, AGA FOR R4)

¶26

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.4 IN NO. CTO(AUDIT)3.8/T.NO/202425 DATED 01.07.2024 PASSED WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE AND ALSO NOT UPLOADED ON THE GST PORTAL WHICH IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶31

“(i) Hold by way of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any such direction or order, quashing the impugned order of Respondent No.4 in No.CTO(Audit)3.8/T.NO/2024-25 dated 01.07.2024 passed without service of Notice and also not uploaded on the GST Portal which is herewith enclosed as Annexure "C".

¶32

(ii) Hold by way of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or any such direction or order, quashing the summary show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 vide Reference No.ZD290724000702L dated

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:41788 WP No. 26907 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

01.07.2024 which is herewith enclosed as Annexure "B" and the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 21.3.2024 In No.CTO/Audit-3.8/2023-24 which is herewith enclosed as Annexure "A".

¶37

(iii) Hold by way of any appropriate writ or direction or declaration to strike down Notification No.56/2023-CT dated 28.12.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 as ultra vires the provisions of Section 168A of the CGST Act, 2017 read with KGST Act, 2017, and ultra vires Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as Annexure-F.

¶38

(iv) Pass any other order or give any other direction as this Honorable Court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶40

counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned AGA for respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.

¶41

A perusal of material on record will indicate that pursuant to an Intimation in Form DRC-01A dated 13.03.2024, the respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice dated 21.03.2024 under Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 alleging that there was short-declaration of output tax liability. Subsequently, the respondent No.4 passed an order dated 01.07.2024 under

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:41788 WP No. 26907 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Sections 73 of the KGST/CGST Act confirming a total demand of Rs.10,61,439/- along with interest of Rs.7,48,314/- and a penalty of Rs.1,12,152/-, without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶45

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the notices and hence, petitioner could not submit replies/ documents to the show-cause notice under section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 and resultantly couldn’t contest the proceedings. Respondent No.4 has proceeded to pass the impugned ex-parte order, which is violative of the principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be set aside and the respondent No.4 may be directed to pass fresh order after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 21.03.2024 is barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the KGST Act and as such, the availability of equivalent, efficacious and alternative remedy by way of filing of an appeal

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:41788 WP No. 26907 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

under Section 107 of the CGST / KGST Act would not come in the

¶50

way of the petitioner prosecuting the present petition.

¶51

Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondents – revenue submits that the period of limitation has been extended by the respondents vide Notification No.13/2022 dated 05.07.2022, Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 dated 31.03.2023 and 08.12.2023 respectively and as such, it cannot be said that the proceedings are barred by limitation.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the Petition in Special Leave Appeal (C) No. 4240/2025 pending before the Apex Court in order to contend that the validity of the said Notifications are seized by the Apex Court and pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶53

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions made by both sides which will indicate that the validity of the aforesaid Notifications are seized by the Apex Court and which will have an impact / bearing on the impugned proceedings, I am of the view that one more opportunity is required to be granted in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:41788 WP No. 26907 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

adjudication order and remitting the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.

¶57

Under these circumstances, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that there are no conflicting orders, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondent No.4 to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a fresh adjudication order in accordance with law after disposal of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025 by the Apex Court.

¶58

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) Petition is hereby allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Karnataka High Court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru, within a period of six weeks from today.

¶61

(ii) The impugned order at Annexures – C and D both dated 01.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.4 are hereby set aside.

¶62

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.4 for reconsideration afresh and pass a fresh adjudication order in

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:41788 WP No. 26907 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

accordance with law after disposal of SLP No.4240/2025 pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶66

(iv) The period between the date of the impugned order i.e., 01.07.2024 and the date on which the Apex Court disposes of the aforesaid SLP No.4240/2025 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation.

¶67

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶68

MDS

¶69

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 38

M/S Manish Enterprises v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manish Enterprises v. Union of India

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

Linnet Teddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Darshan S Vs State of Government

The Chief Secretary Vs Shwetha S

Yashaswini Gruha Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs the Income Tax Officer

NET-9 Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-Ii)

Ornate Designs Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes