M/S N M Kirshnamurthy Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:6430 WP No. 3194 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3194 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S N M KIRSHNAMURTHY, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, N. M. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED AROUND 61 YEARS, NO. 38/B, 12^TH MAIN, GOKUL 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. UDAY SHANKAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-51, DGSTO-06, 2^ND FLOOR, KIADB BLDG., 14^TH CROSS, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. JYOTI M. MARADI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2023 BEARING NO.ZD290724078539M PASSED UNDER SECTION 73 OF KGST, 2017 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6430 WP No. 3194 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent.

¶23

The petitioner has called in question the validity of order of adjudication at Annexure-A passed under Section 73 (9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act.

¶24

It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed is on the principle of Best Judgment Assessment, as the petitioner did not make out any reply to the showcause notice. The reason assigned by the petitioner is during the relevant point of time when personal hearing was afforded, petitioner was incapacitated due to his medical condition. Reliance is placed on medical records at Annexures-D, E and F.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:6430 WP No. 3194 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that taking note of the medical condition of the petitioner and recovery, reopening of the proceedings with opportunity to the petitioner to enable him to take a stand on merits, is required.

¶29

Learned HCGP submits that the authorities were

¶30

constrained to pass an order due to absence of any reply to the show-cause notice by the petitioner.

¶31

Heard both sides.

¶32

Perused the medical records at Annexures-D, E and F. The said medical records are self-explanatory. Noticed that the order of adjudication is passed without benefit of any reply on merits to the show-cause notice by the petitioner. Order is passed on the principle of Best Judgement Assessment. In the peculiar facts of this case, it would be appropriate to enable the petitioner to take a stand by way of reply to the show-cause notice and enable the petitioner to participate in the proceedings.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6430 WP No. 3194 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

In light of the discussion made above, the order

¶36

at Annexure-A is set aside as well as the recovery proceedings in case No. C/M-150/2025 pending before the Court of Special JMFC (Sales Tax), Gandhinagar at Annexure-G series. Matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice at Annexure-B. All contentions are kept open.

¶37

Petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on 25.02.2026. Needless to state, if the petitioner fails to avail of opportunity granted by this Court on the date fixed, the indulgence granted by this

¶38

Court would stand withdrawn.

¶39

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶40

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶41

MCR

M/S N M Kirshnamurthy v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S N M Kirshnamurthy v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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 Gs E-Commerce Private Limited Vs Superintendent of Central Tax.

M/S Edge Clothing Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax

M/S Adhi Easwer Trading Company Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S Dnc Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner

M/S Gokul Hotels Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

M/S Sai Srushti Infrastructure Vs Assessment Unit