Emisha Technology Solutions LLP Vs the Commercial Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

Emisha Technology Solutions LLP Vs the Commercial Tax… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; Adjudication Order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-A) quashed; proceedings restored to the respondent (Commercial Tax Officer, LGSTO-37) for re-examination, with the petitioner to produce the Annexure-J series (bankers' certificates) once again by 27.07.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restore the adjudication proceedings for re-examination, where confirmation rested solely on non-production of FIRC and Bank Statements despite the petitioner's bankers' certificates (Annexure-J series) acknowledging remittances to its Non-Resident Rupee Account.

Court's answer

If the petitioner's case is that its Banker has acknowledged remittances to its Non-Resident Rupee Account, that acknowledgment should have been considered before confirming the proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

It could reasonably be opined that the Certificate issued by the petitioner's bankers (Annexure-J series) would be in place of the FIRC.

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the Adjudication Order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure-A) is quashed, restoring the proceedings to the respondent with a call upon the petitioner to produce the Annexure-J series certificates once again.ratio¶ORDER [b]
The petitioner is directed to produce the Annexure-J series before the respondent once again by 27.07.2026.ratio¶ORDER [b]

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), B M Shyam Prasad J., W.P. No. 18326 of 2026 (T-RES), decided 23.06.2026: Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 allowed; Adjudication Order No. CTO/LGSTO37/ORDER/2024-25 dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 for tax period 2020-21 quashed and proceedings restored to the Commercial Tax Officer, LGSTO-37 for fresh consideration. The order had confirmed proceedings solely because the exporter of services did not produce the FIRC and Bank Statements, without considering the Certificates issued by its bankers (Annexure-J series) acknowledging remittances to its Non-Resident Rupee Account, which could reasonably be treated as standing in place of FIRC. Petitioner directed to produce the Annexure-J series before the respondent once again by 27.07.2026.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31056 WP No. 18326 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 18326 OF 2026 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

EMISHA TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BUILDING NO HD- 487 WE WORK GALAXY 43, RESIDENCY ROAD, SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560025 REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNER, SHRI SUMIT DAS VISHWAS

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Location: HIGH THE COMMERCIAL TAX COURT OF OFFICER LGSTO - 37 KARNATAKA NO 58, 1^ST FLOOR, HAL 2^ND STAGE, DEFENCE COLONY, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560038.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K. HEMA KUMAR., AGA)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31056 WP No. 18326 of 2026

HC-KAR

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING NO. CTO/LGSTO37/ORDER /2024-25 DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A).

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the Adjudication Order dated 28.02.2025 [Annexure-A] for the tax period 2020-21 under Section 73[9] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the relevant Rules under these enactments. The petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice is considered with the respondent opining that there is no option but to confirm the proceedings because the petitioner has not produced Foreign Investment Remittance Certificate [FIRC] and the Bank Statements.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31056 WP No. 18326 of 2026

HC-KAR

Sri Pradyumna Hejib, the learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri K Hemakumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondent, are heard on whether this Court must interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restore the proceedings for re-examination. The petitioner's case is [a] that it has begun its business involving ‘ export of services’ for the financial year 2019-2020 and no proceedings are initiated with the petitioner filing all the Returns, and [b] that for the tax period 2020-21, the proceedings are initiated and confirmed only on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the copies of the FIRC and the Bank Statements.

Sri Pradyumna Hejib submits that the respondent should have confirmed the proceedings only after considering the different documents furnished including the Letter of Undertaking and the copies of the sale invoices and the change in the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31056 WP No. 18326 of 2026

HC-KAR

procedure for issuance of FIRC in the light of the Certificates issued by the petitioner's bankers in terms of Annexure-J series.

4. Sri K Hemakumar, a learned Additional

Government Advocate, is heard. This Court must opine that if the petitioner's case is that its Banker has acknowledged remittances to its Non-Resident Rupee Account, the same should have been considered before confirming the proceedings, especially if it could be reasonably opined that the Certificate would be instead of FIRC. Hence the following:

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed.

[b] The Adjudication Order dated 28.02.2025 [Annexure-A] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the respondent calling upon the petitioner to produce Annexure-J series with the

NC: 2026:KHC:31056 WP No. 18326 of 2026

5 -

HC-KAR

respondent once again by 27.07.2026 .

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-