M/S. Chetan Infra Projects v. the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/16634/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KGST Act Section 73 ex parte adjudication order DRC-07 dated 07.07.2025 quashed; CGST Act concurrent provisions; consolidated show cause notice for two tax periods; no reply filed; GSTR-3B vs GSTR-7 mismatch and reconciliation; statutory appeal GST-AP.656/2025-26 rejected 06.01.2026; opportunity to file reply with documents; proceedings restored to Assistant Commissioner (Audit)-4.1; writ petition under Article 226; WP No. 16634 of 2026 (T-RES); High Court of Karnataka; Justice B M Shyam Prasad; NC: 2026:KHC:29825.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; adjudication order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure-B) quashed and proceedings restored to the second respondent; petitioner directed to appear before the second respondent on 13.07.2026 without further notice and file a reply with all necessary documents. ¶¶36

M/S. Chetan Infra Projects Vs the Joint Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court must interfere with the adjudication order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure-B) under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the concurrent provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which is an ex parte order.

¶¶29

Court's answer

The petition is allowed: the ex parte adjudication order dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure-B) is quashed and the proceedings are restored to the second respondent.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, without being entitled to raise a ground on the consolidated Show Cause Notice issued for two tax periods, must file a reply with documents in the light of the submissions now being made.

¶¶34

Key takeaways

Operative direction: the petitioner shall, without further notice, appear before the second respondent on 13.07.2026 and file a reply with all necessary documents.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (B M Shyam Prasad, J.; NC: 2026:KHC:29825) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by M/s. Chetan Infra Projects against (i) an ex parte adjudication order No.ACCT(A)4.1/DGSTO-4/DRC-07/07/2025-26 dated 07.07.2025 (Annexure-B) passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)-4.1 under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the concurrent provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and (ii) the rejection of the petitioner's appeal GST-AP.656/2025-26 by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4 by order dated 06.01.2026. The adjudicating authority had recorded that the petitioner filed no response to a consolidated Show Cause Notice issued for two tax periods. Holding that the petitioner was not entitled to raise a ground on the consolidated Show Cause Notice but must file a reply with documents, the Court quashed the adjudication order, restored the proceedings to the second respondent, and directed the petitioner to appear on 13.07.2026 without further notice and file a reply with all necessary documents. Counsel had indicated the petitioner could demonstrate reconciliation of a mismatch between the returns filed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-7.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29825 WP No. 16634 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 16634 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S. CHETAN INFRA PROJECTS NEAR HOUSING BOARD, NO.139, SY NO.231/1, MUTHANALLUR CROSS, DOMMASANDRA, BANGALORE, BENGALURU URBAN, KARNATAKA - 562125. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, B. SREENIVASULA REDDY S/O VENKATA REDDY., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. HALESHA R. GAVIMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-4, NO. 640, 6^TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:29825 WP No. 16634 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-4.1, DVO-4, 5^TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 095.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ADJUDICATION ORDER NO.ACCT(A)4.1/DGSTO-4/DRC-07/07/2025-26 AND REFERENCE NO. ZD290725023142K DATED 07.07.2025 ANNEXURE-B, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2; B) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF APPEAL NO.GST-AP.656/2025-26 REJECTED ORDER NO. ZD290126078163B DATED 06.01.2026-ANNEXURE-D, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1; C) IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO PRAYER (A), ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO TAKE THE PETITIONERS APPEAL NO.GSTAP.656/2025-26 REJECTED ORDER NO. ZD290126078163B DATED 06.01.2026-ANNEXURE-D, ON RECORD AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME ON ITS MERITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER AFFORDING A

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29825 WP No. 16634 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The short question for consideration is: whether this Court must interfere with the adjudication order under Section 73 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the 'KGST Act' ] and the concurrent provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short the 'CGST Act' ]. The adjudication order is dated 07.07.2025 [ Annexure-B ] and it is an ex parte order.

¶30

The adjudicating authority [ the second respondent ] is categorical in recording that the petitioner has not filed a response to the Show Cause Notice. Sri Halesha R.G., the learned counsel for the petitioner, while pleading bona fides for non-participation in the proceedings, asserts that the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29825 WP No. 16634 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

petitioner's grievance would be redressed if it is extended an opportunity to file reply because the petitioner can demonstrate that there would be no reason for the proceedings on the ground that there is a mismatch between the returns filed in GSTR-3B and GSTR-7. The learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner can produce documents to demonstrate reconciliation between the two.

¶34

Sri K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard. This Court in the circumstances is of the view that the petitioner, without being entitled to raise a ground on the consolidated Show Cause Notice issued for two tax periods, must file a reply with documents in the light of the submissions now being made. In the light of the afore, the following

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed quashing the adjudication order dated 07.07.2025 [ Annexure-B ] and restoring the proceedings to the second respondent. The petitioner shall,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:29825 WP No. 16634 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

without further notice, appear before the

¶41

second respondent on 13.07.2026 and file a

¶42

reply with all necessary documents.

¶43