The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax., Vs Mr. Shankar Suresh

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE C. R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 56000 (THE CORRECT DESIGNATION AND ADDRESS OF THE 1^ST APPELLANT IS AS STATED ABOVE) THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU, C/O OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, HMT BHAVAN, GANGANAGAR, BELLARI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032

¶14

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE, BELAGAVI UNIT, HAVING OFFICE AT SRI. LAXMI COMPLEX, NO.4855/83, SADASHIVANAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, APMC ROAD, BELAGAVI - 590 019

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35886-DB WA No. 1337 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

MR. SHANKAR SURESH S/O SRI. H. SHANKARA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O NO.33, 22^ND MAIN, PADMANABHANAGAR, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶21

MR. PRADEEP KUAR SHEKAR, S/O LATE MR. LATE SEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O NO.C 501, R LAYOUT SECTOR 7, BENGALURU SOUTH, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560 102.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.37844/2025 (T-RES) DATED 17/12/2025 AND ETC

¶25

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35886-DB WA No. 1337 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶31

Heard Sri.Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel for the appellants - revenue and Sri.Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the respondent - assessee. Perused the entire appeal papers.

¶32

2. The respondents were before the learned Single Judge questioning the Show Cause Cum Demand Notice dated 01.08.2024 bearing SCN Sl No.84/2024-25 B1ZU and DIN No.202407DSS1000000FE86 issued by the appellants herein under Section 122(1)(ii) and Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2017-2018 to 2019-2020 and also had sought for quashing the order in original dated 21.11.2025 bearing OIO No.61/2025-26 (GST-JC) and bearing DIN No.2025115700000000B8EB whereunder, the respondents - petitioners were penalized under Section 122(1)(ii) and (vii) and Section 122(1)(A) and Section 122(3)(a) for the alleged period of September, 2018 to October, 2019.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35886-DB WA No. 1337 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned Single Judge under impugned order dated 17.12.2025 allowed the writ petition and quashed the Show Cause Notice dated 01.08.2024 as well as the order in Original dated 21.11.2025 reserving liberty to the respondent - appellants herein to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The said order is challenged in the present appeal.

¶36

3. Sri.Aravind Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants - revenue would bring to the notice of this Court the judgment dated 24.04.2026 in the Writ Appeal No.1751/2024 and connected appeals, whereunder, it is held that the consolidated/common show cause notice is permissible. It is submitted that the writ appeal needs to be allowed in terms of the said judgment and the respondents - assessee are to be relegated to the appeal remedy.

¶37

4. Per contra , Sri.Bharath Kumar V., learned counsel for the respondents - assessee would submit that the

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35886-DB WA No. 1337 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

order in original is passed without considering the objection filed by the respondents - assessee. Learned counsel for the respondents would point out that the objection to the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the department's portal on 20.03.2025. However, without considering the said objection as well as without providing an opportunity of hearing, the revenue appellants herein passed order in original. Therefore, he submits that the matter needs to be sent back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the objection and to provide an opportunity to the respondents - assessee and then to pass appropriate order.

¶41

5. We have gone through the order in original. Paragraph No.25 of the order in original notes that there is no reply/response received from the Tax Payer assessee regarding the allegations and charges made in the Show Cause Notice. However, Annexure - E would indicate uploading of objection by the respondents - assessee.

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:35886-DB WA No. 1337 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

6. Sri.Aravind Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants - revenue on instruction submits that in fact the Adjudicating Authority had received the uploaded objection. However, the Adjudicating Authority has failed to consider the objection filed by the respondents - assessee.

¶46

7. In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of the objection filed by the respondents - assessee and to provide them an opportunity of hearing. Hence, the following:-

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ appeal is allowed .

¶49

ii. Impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2025 in W.P.No.37844/2025 stands set aside.

¶50

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:35886-DB WA No. 1337 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

iii. The matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating

¶53

Authority for consideration of the objection filed by the respondents - assessee and also to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondents - assessee.

¶54

iv. The respondents - assessee shall appear before the appellant No.1 on 30.07.2026 at 11.00 a.m.

¶55

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶56

Sd/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶57

MH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax., v. Mr. Shankar Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax., v. Mr. Shankar Suresh

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

Smt Surekha Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Srinivas G S/O Govindaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivananda R Shivapura Vs the Principal Secretary

The Manager Icici Lombard Gic Ltd. Vs Smt. Rathnamma

The Divisional Manager Vs Kum Chandhana

Smt. Rathnamma Vs Sri Manjunatha G.S. S/O Shivanna