M/S Sri Boomibalakan Metal and Alloys Vs Commercial Tax Oficer, LGSTO-81

M/S SRI BOOMIBALAKAN METAL AND ALLOYS SITE NO. 6, SY. NO. 56/2, MACHOHALLI VILLAGE, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560091, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI RAMU MUTHUKUMAR S/O RAMU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT 13/16, TITAN TOWNSHIP, MATHIGIRI, HOSUR CATTLE FARM, HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI, TAMIL NADU 635110 (A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHREEHARI., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

COMMERCIAL TAX OFICER, LGSTO-81, BENGALURU, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX OFFICE 081, DGSTO-06, 1ST FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING, 14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560058.

¶15

COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VTK, 80FT ROAD,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3677 WP No. 1644 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. JYOTHI M MARADI., ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 73 IN FORM GST DRC01 DATED 30.01.2024 BEARING REF. NO. CTO/LGSTO-81/DRC01/06/2023-24 AND A SUBSEQUENT SUMMARY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING REF NO.ZD290124060505J PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE -B1 AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 as well as the Summary Order at Annexure-C2.

¶27

It is submitted that the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 is an ex-parte order and that the petitioner was not aware of the notices issued as the same were posted on the portal and accordingly, there was no reply to the show cause notices. It is submitted that another opportunity may be granted to make out reply and the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3677 WP No. 1644 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

matter be decided on the basis of such reply rather than

¶31

the authority proceeding under the best judgment assessment.

¶32

Learned HCGP submits that the lapse, if any is only attributable to the petitioner.

¶33

Perused the impugned order. It is noticed that

¶34

the authority has proceeded in the absence of any reply by the petitioner. Taking note of the contention made and also observing that the authority has proceeded to decide to adjudicate without any reply on behalf of the petitioner, it would be appropriate that petitioner be afforded an opportunity to make out reply to the show cause notice and the department proceed further to decide on merits.

¶35

Accordingly, taking note of the request of the petitioner, it would meet the ends of justice by setting aside the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 and the Summary Order at Annexure-C2 and remanding the

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:3677 WP No. 1644 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

matter back to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

¶40

Accordingly, the Order of Adjudication at Annexure-C1 and the Summary Order at Annexure-C2 are set aside. The matter is remitted in terms of the observations made above. All contentions are kept open. In light of the lapse on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 09.02.2026. Needless to state, if the petitioner does not avail of such opportunity, the indulgence granted by this Court would stand revived.

¶41

In light of the above, the writ petition is

¶42

disposed of .

¶43

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶44

VP

¶45

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

M/S Sri Boomibalakan Metal and Alloys v. Commercial Tax Oficer, LGSTO-81

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sri Boomibalakan Metal and Alloys v. Commercial Tax Oficer, LGSTO-81

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

Smt Padma a C Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Khayati Steel Industries Private Limited Vs Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Divyasree Tarbus Builders Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt Karemma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Doddakka Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Vishwanath Vs State by Devaraja Police Station.