Disposed¶6

Vignesh Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Apr 2026WP/10783/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST adjudication set aside as ex parte for want of notice; Section 73(9) CGST/KGST Act; Section 75(4); principles of natural justice; garnishee order set aside; Article 226 writ; remand for fresh consideration; conditional pre-payment of 35% of tax demand Rs.99,434.65; GSTR-3B versus GSTR-1 discrepancy; rectification application April-2024; Vignesh Healthcare Pvt Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LGSTO-021; Karnataka High Court; disposal (no precedent cited).

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: Order-in-Original (Annexure-A) set aside and matter remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration, with the petitioner to appear without further notice on 13.05.2026; garnishee order (Annexure-J) set aside; petitioner to pay 35% of the tax demand (Rs. 99,434.65) before the date fixed, subject to adjudication.

Vignesh Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex parte Order-in-Original (Annexure-A), passed allegedly without notice to the petitioner, should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication, on terms as to payment. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The Court, noting the petitioner's stand that the order was ex parte, held it appropriate to set aside the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A and remit the matter for fresh consideration before the respondent, directing the petitioner to appear without further notice on 13.05.2026.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

In light of the setting aside of the order of adjudication, the order of garnishee at Annexure-J was set aside.

¶6

Key takeaways

As a term of the remand, the petitioner was directed to pay 35% of the tax demand, i.e., Rs.99,434.65/-, before the date fixed, such payment being without prejudice to and subject to the fresh adjudication.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (Single Bench, S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.; decided 09.04.2026) — Writ Petition (T-RES) No. 10783 of 2026 under Article 226 — Vignesh Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-021. The petitioner challenged an ex parte Order-in-Original dated 06.12.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act (Ref. ACCT/LGSTO-21/ADJ-01/2023-24), contending it had no notice of the proceedings — the order surfaced only in the 'additional tab' in March-2024, and the petitioner's representative (a widow) was not communicated of the adjudication. The Court set aside the Order-in-Original (Annexure-A) and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on 13.05.2026. Consequent to setting aside the adjudication order, the garnishee order (Annexure-J) was set aside, on the petitioner paying 35% of the tax demand, i.e., Rs. 99,434.65, before the date fixed, such payment being subject to the fresh adjudication. Petition disposed of. No precedents were cited or discussed in the order.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:19645 WP No. 10783 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 10783 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VIGNESH HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CIN: U51900KA2011PTC060633, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.6, CONNAUGHT ROAD, TASKER TOWN, QUEENS ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REKHA SREENIVAS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIGNESH A. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-021, NO.19/2, 2^ND FLOOR, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED UNDER SECTION 73(9) OF THE CGST/KGST ACT (REFERENCE NO.ACCT/LGSTO-21/ ADJ-01/2023-24) BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19645 WP No. 10783 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SAME, AS BEING ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, VIOLATIVE OF SECTION 75(4), VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND NON-EST IN LAW, THE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - "A" AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Sri. K. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government

¶24

Advocate accepts notice for the respondent.

¶25

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had no notice of the proceedings except for the order being uploaded in the additional tab during the period of March-2024. Subsequent to which, petitioner has taken steps to file a rectification application in the month of April-2024.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that the representative of the petitioner entity is a widow and not being communicated of the proceedings, could not take

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19645 WP No. 10783 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

part in the adjudication which has culminated in an exparte order.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶31

the lapse is bona-fide and the Court may condone the lapse by putting the petitioner on terms and may set aside the order of adjudication and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. It is further submitted that the alleged difference in tax liability declared in GSTR-3B vis-à-vis GSTR-1 returns, is a discrepancy that does not exist and petitioner would demonstrate the same, if given an opportunity.

¶32

Taking note of the said stand of the petitioner

¶33

and that the order passed is an exparte order, it would it be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-A and remit the matter back for fresh consideration before the respondent. The petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on 13.05.2026.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:19645 WP No. 10783 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

In light of setting aside of the order of

¶38

adjudication, the order of garnishee at Annexure-J is set aside. The petitioner to pay 35% of the tax demand i.e., Rs.99,434.65/-. Needless to state, such payment would be subject to adjudication to be made. Such payment to be made before the date fixed.

¶39

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶40

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶41

MCR

Vignesh Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vignesh Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nexus It World Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mangalore Internet City Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax

Ravi Kumar Jonna Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central CIRCLE-3(2) Bengaluru

Ankit Agarwal Vs Assessment Unit

Chikkaramaiah Babu Reddy Vs Assessment Unit

M/S G S and Company Vs the State of Karnataka