Disposed¶30

M/S Sadiya Constructions v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/27569/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

alternate remedy; relegation to statutory appeal; Section 107 Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act 2017; denial of input tax credit Rs.2,36,130/- tax period 2019-20; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; Commercial Tax Officer SGSTO-172 Madhugiri; Annexure-H; appeal to be accepted without limitation objection if filed within four weeks; contentions kept open; Karnataka High Court 2026; S Sunil Dutt Yadav J.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a protective direction: the appeal under Section 107 of the Karnataka GST Act, if filed within four weeks, to be taken on record without any objection as regards limitation; all contentions kept open. No relief of quashing the impugned order was granted in the writ petition. ¶30

M/S Sadiya Constructions Vs the State of Karnataka — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the denial of input tax credit of Rs.2,36,130/- for tax period 2019-20 should be entertained, or whether the petitioner should instead be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Karnataka GST Act, given that the contention was decided on merits in the impugned order.

¶29

Court's answer

Noticing the findings at para 16 of the impugned order, and since the contention raised therein was decided on merits, the Court held it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy (appeal under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017) rather than decide the matter in the writ petition.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

If the appeal is filed within four weeks, it is to be taken on record without raising any objection as regards limitation, taking note that the writ petition was filed within a reasonable time after passing of the impugned order.

¶30

Key takeaways

All contentions of the petitioner are kept open, to be agitated before the statutory appellate authority.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 27569 of 2025 (T-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.; order dated 05.01.2026): M/s Sadiya Constructions sought a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order dated 25.06.2025 (No.CTO.SGSTO-172/MGIRI/RECT/2526, Annexure-H) passed by the 2nd respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer (GST Sub Office 172, Madhugiri), insofar as it denied input tax credit of Rs.2,36,130/- for the tax period 2019-20. Noticing that an appeal under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 lay against the impugned order, and that the contention had been decided on merits at para 16 thereof, the Court relegated the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy and disposed of the petition. It further directed that if the appeal is filed within four weeks, it be taken on record without objection as regards limitation, the writ petition having been filed within a reasonable time after the impugned order, and kept all contentions open.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:163 WP No. 27569 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 27569 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S SADIYA CONSTRUCTIONS A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REGISTERED UNDER CGST ACT, VIVEKANANDA BADAVANE, MADHUGIRI RURAL, MADHUGIRI TUMKURU - 572 132 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRO: SADIQ SAB AGED 52 YEARS

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER GOODS AND SERVICE TAX

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:163 WP No. 27569 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SUB OFFICE 172, BEHIND SHANKAR MUTT CORDIAL SCHOOL ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, MADHUGIRI - 572 132

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. HEMAKUMAR, AGA)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.CTO.SGSTO-172/MGIRI/RECT/2526 DATED 25.06.2025 IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO DENIAL OF INPUT TAX CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.2,36,130/- IN RELATION TO THE TAX PERIOD 2019-20. VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present petition has been filed calling in question

¶25

the correctness of the order dated 25.06.2025 insofar as it pertains to denial of input tax credit amounting to Rs.2,36,130 for the period 2019-20.

¶26

It is noticed that as against the order at Annexure-H, there is an appeal under Section 107 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Though

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:163 WP No. 27569 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

certain contentions have been advanced, noticing the findings at para 16 of the impugned order, as the contention raised has been decided on merits, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the statutory appellate remedy.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of . If the appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the same to be taken on record without raising any objection as regards limitation, taking note that the writ petition was filed within a reasonable time after passing of the impugned order. All contentions are kept open.

¶31

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶32

M/S Sadiya Constructions v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sadiya Constructions v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri H G Anjinappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. C. N. Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.B.a.Basavaraja, Vs State by Bharathinagar Police Station

Pashupati Davella Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Thumpudi Srikanth Bhagavat Vs Union of India

Pds Logistics International P Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer