Dismissed¶¶48

The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax v. M/S Apkon Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2026WA/141/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST; show-cause notice; single SCN three financial years erroneous; observation set aside/expunged; Section 107 CGST Act alternative remedy; Section 74(9) CGST Act; Section 73(9) KGST Act; writ appeal dismissed; WP No.32460/2024; WP No.35830/2025; Karnataka High Court Division Bench; Revenue v. M/s Apkon Ventures Pvt. Ltd.; jurisdictional observation deleted.

What did the court decide?

Interference limited to deletion of the learned Single Judge's observation that a single show-cause notice covering three financial years was erroneous; that observation stands set aside. Except to that extent, the writ appeal was not entertained and was dismissed. ¶¶48

The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax Vs M/S… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the observation recorded in the judgment dated 10.12.2024 of the learned Single Judge in WP No.32460/2024 - that a single show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner for short payment of GST in respect of three financial years and was erroneous - should be set aside, removed or expunged, as prayed by the Revenue appellants.

¶¶46

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge's observation that issuance of a single show-cause notice in respect of three financial years is erroneous touched upon the correctness and jurisdiction relating to the issuance of the show-cause notice; in view of the respondent being relegated to the appellate remedy, that observation on the correctness of the common notice was unnecessary.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

The aforesaid observation of the learned Single Judge (that a single notice for three financial years was erroneous) is hereby set aside, the Division Bench interfering with the impugned order only to the limited extent of deleting that observation.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

Except to the extent of the deletion of the said observation, the writ appeal is not entertained and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (T-RES) by Revenue under S.4, Karnataka High Court Act, against the learned Single Judge's judgment dated 10.12.2024 in WP No.32460/2024 (decided 20.01.2026 by DB of S.G. Pandit and K.V. Aravind JJ.; oral judgment per Aravind J.). The Single Judge had declined to entertain the writ petition of M/s Apkon Ventures Pvt. Ltd. questioning a show-cause notice dated 20.12.2022 and ensuing orders under S.74(9) CGST Act / S.73(9) KGST Act, relegating it to the appellate remedy under S.107 CGST Act, while observing that issuance of a single show-cause notice for three financial years was erroneous. The Division Bench held that this observation touched upon the correctness and jurisdiction relating to issuance of the show-cause notice and was unnecessary once the assessee stood relegated to the appellate remedy (¶¶41, 44); it accordingly set aside that observation (¶¶45-47) and, except to that extent, did not entertain the appeal, dismissing it (¶¶48-49). The Bench also recorded respondent No.1's counsel's statement that the show-cause notice and consequential order had already been set aside by this Court's judgment dated 17.12.2025 in WP No.35830/2025 (¶40).

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2845-DB WA No. 141 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶10

WRIT APPEAL No. 141 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU NORTH WEST DIVISION, 2^ND FLOOR, SHIVAJINAGAR, BMTC BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560051.

¶13

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (AUDIT II), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (AUDIT), BENGALURU AUDIT-II, JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BANGALURU-560085.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE V, AUDIT II COMMISSIONERATE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (AUDIT), BENGALURU AUDIT-II, JSS TOWERS, 100 FEET RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶16

…APPELLANTS

¶17

(BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2845-DB WA No. 141 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

M/S APKON VENTURES PVT. LTD., GARDEN HOUSE, GARDEN ROAD, TUMKURU 572101, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SMT. ASHA PRASANNA KUMAR.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT) 6.3, DGSTO, III FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING, 14^TH CROSS, II STAGE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560058.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI B. N. MAHESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA FOR R2)

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE, REMOVE OR EXPUNGE THE IMPUGNED PORTION, THE LAST THREE LINES OF PARA 1 THAT IS "HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT SINGLE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF SHORT PAYMENT OF GST IN RESPECT OF THREE FINANCIAL YEARS WHICH IS ERRONEOUS" OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 10/12/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.32460/2024.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:2845-DB WA No. 141 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶33

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶34

Heard Sri. Aravind V Chavan, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Sri. B N Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri. Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶35

This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed in Writ Petition No.32460/2024 dated 10.12.2024. Respondent No.1 had preferred the writ petition questioning the show-cause notice dated 20.12.2022 issued by the second appellant. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice, an order came to be passed under Section 74(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “CGST Act”) and Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “KGST Act”). The writ petition was not entertained on the ground that an alternative and efficacious remedy was available under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

¶36

Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants, submits that the learned

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:2845-DB WA No. 141 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Single Judge, while relegating the respondent to the appellate remedy, made observations on the validity of the show-cause notice. According to the learned Senior Standing Counsel, such observations touch upon the jurisdiction and correctness of the show-cause notice.

¶40

Sri B.N. Mahesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submits that the order passed in appeal was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.35830/2025, wherein this Court, by judgment dated 17.12.2025, has set aside the show-cause notice and the consequential order. Hence, it is submitted that the present petition does not survive for further consideration.

¶41

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we notice that, under the impugned order, the respondent-assessee was relegated to the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. While doing so, the learned Single Judge made an observation to the effect that issuance of a single show-cause notice in respect of three financial years is erroneous. Such an observation touches upon the correctness and jurisdiction relating to the issuance of the

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2845-DB WA No. 141 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

show-cause notice. In view of the respondent being relegated to the appellate remedy, the observation made by the learned Single Judge on the correctness of the common notice was unnecessary.

¶45

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order only to a limited extent by deleting the observation recorded therein, which reads as under:

¶46

" ... However, it is seen that single notice has been issued to the petitioner in respect of short payment of GST in respect of three financial years, which is erroneous."

¶47