Disposed¶34

M/S. Hyperartho Industries v. the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-3.7, DGSTO-03

Karnataka GST – Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2026WP/6787/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 6787 of 2026 (T-RES), High Court of Karnataka, decided 03.03.2026 by S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J. Keywords: Karnataka GST Act Section 73(9); Order-in-Original; DRC07; ex parte order without reply; GSTR-3B vs GSTR-2A discrepancy; remand to stage of reply to show-cause notice; pre-deposit/condition of 20% of demand; Article 227; Hyperartho Industries v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Audit)-3.7, DGSTO-03.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: order at Annexure-C set aside and matter remitted to the stage of reply to show-cause notice, subject to payment of 20% of the demand by 07.04.2026 and the petitioner's appearance before the respondent on 07.04.2026; all contentions kept open. ¶34

M/S. Hyperartho Industries Vs the Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:12849 WP No. 6787 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6787 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. HYPERARTHO INDUSTRIES, PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.42/1, MARENAHALLI, TANKBUND LOCK JAYANAGAR, NEAR JAI BHARATH TENT HOUSE, JAYANAGAR 5^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560041, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CHAKRAVARTHY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VEERESH MAHESH UPPIN., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-3.7, DGSTO-03, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-3.7, DIVISIONAL GOODS AND SERVICES, TAX OFFICE-3, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC COMPLES, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12849 WP No. 6787 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2023 BEARING NO.ACCT(A)-3.7/DGSTO-3/DRC07-HYPERARTHO INDUSTRIES/2023- 24 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent.

¶22

The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order at Annexure-C which is the Orderin-Original. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 73(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') have concluded in an order without benefit of any reply by the petitioner.

¶23

It is submitted that non-participation in the proceedings and not making out reply was due to genuine reasons, as there were certain civil disputes amongst the

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12849 WP No. 6787 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

family members. It is submitted that if an opportunity is granted and the order is recalled and remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice, petitioner would demonstrate the discrepancy as noticed between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, does not exist.

¶27

Perusal of the order passed under Section 73(9)

¶28

of the Act would indicate that the order is passed without any benefit of the reply of petitioner.

¶29

In light of the stand of the petitioner that they have material to demonstrate that the discrepancy as noticed does not exist, it would be appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-C and remit the matter back to the stage of reply to show-cause notice. In light of the delay in challenging the order, petitioner is put on terms and is to make payment of 20% of the demand raised to the respondent authority. Such payment made would be subject to adjudication to be made.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:12849 WP No. 6787 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Petitioner to mark his presence before the respondent without further notice on 07.04.2026. Petitioner to pay 20% of the demand as ordered by 07.04.2026.

¶34

Accordingly, petition is disposed of . All contentions are kept open.

¶35

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶36

MCR

M/S. Hyperartho Industries v. the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-3.7, DGSTO-03

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Hyperartho Industries v. the Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes (AUDIT)-3.7, DGSTO-03

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. Mylarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

K.S.Naganna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Munegowda N Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Srinidi Bar and Restaurant Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Mahalakshmi Agencies Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Sri Guru H M Vs Bangalore Development Authority