Disposed

M/S Agromatica Engineering v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/35159/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an ex-parte GST order under Section 73(9) and consequential recovery notice, claiming the portal notice went unnoticed. The court set aside both orders and remanded for fresh consideration from the stage of the show cause notice reply, with costs.

What did the court decide?

Order in Form GST DRC-07 and DRC-13 notice set aside; matter remanded; reply permitted within 15 days; costs Rs.10,000 to HC Legal Services Committee.

M/S Agromatica Engineering Vs Assistant Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:725 WP No. 35159 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 35159 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

M/S AGROMATICA ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.47/1, C BUILDING, NO.2, PATEL VENKATAPPA COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, SUNKADAKATTE, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 091

¶11

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REPRESENTED BY SRI KIRTI KUMAR KABRA, S/O LATE SRI N.S.KABRA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE)

¶13

… PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. Y.C. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-6.1, DGSTO-6, 3^RD FLOOR, KIADB BLDG., 14^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:725 WP No. 35159 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶20

… RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE EX-PARTE "ORDER UNDER SECTION 73(9) READ WITH OTHER SECTIONS OF GST ACTS IN FORM GST DRC-07" DATED 10-04-2024, BEARING NO.ACCT(A)6.1/DGSTO-6/ADJ-ORDER/2023-24, DATED 10-04-2024, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT, AS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner has sought for setting aside of the order at Annexure-A passed under Section 73(9) as well as other provisions of the KGST Act, in Form GST DRC-07. Petitioner has also sought for setting aside of the consequential notice in Form GST DRC-13 at Annexure-B.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that the order

¶27

passed is an ex-parte order as the petitioner did not file any objection as regards the discrepancies noticed in the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:725 WP No. 35159 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

show cause notice. It is submitted that no reply was filed as the notice that was posted in the portal did not come to the notice of the petitioner. It is submitted that the order is passed on merits as if there were no reply to the show cause notice and as substantive rights of the petitioner are prejudiced, the Court may set aside the order and restore the proceedings, affording an opportunity to the petitioner to participate.

¶31

Perused the impugned order. It is noticed that the proceedings have progressed in the absence of any reply to the show cause notice in the form of objections to the discrepancies noticed. Taking note of the submission that the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice issued though due to some lapse on the petitioner's side, it would be appropriate to afford another opportunity to the petitioner to take their stand on merits.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-A

¶33

as well as the recovery notice at Annexure-B are set aside.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:725 WP No. 35159 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The matter is remanded for fresh consideration before the respondent. The proceedings are to be resumed from the stage of reply to the show cause notice. Petitioner to make out his reply to the show cause notice within 15 days from today and the respondent is to proceed thereafter.

¶38

Accordingly, petition is disposed of . All

¶39

contentions on merits are kept open.

¶40

Taking note that the order is being set aside due to lapse on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶41

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶42

M/S Agromatica Engineering v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Agromatica Engineering v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muniyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narsappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer - II

Sri Munikrishnappa Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

M/S Pragathi Associates Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sri K Narayanaswamy Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer - 2

Mr. R. v. Nathan Vs the State of Karnataka