Disposed¶39

Ami Enterprises v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2026WP/9569/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ex parte GST adjudication/DRC-07 order dated 22.05.2024 disallowing ITC set aside; remand to stage of reply to show-cause notice; reference to retrospective amendment to Section 16(5) CGST Act, 2017; no personal hearing contention; appearance without fresh notice on 29.04.2026; payment of Rs.5,000/- to Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust; contentions kept open; WP No. 9569 of 2026 (T-RES), High Court of Karnataka, S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J.; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Order at Annexure-A set aside and matter remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice; petitioner to appear before the respondent without fresh notice on 29.04.2026; petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court Building, Bengaluru; all contentions kept open. ¶39

Ami Enterprises Vs the Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:17818 WP No. 9569 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 9569 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

AMI ENTERPRISES, A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF SHRI PATHIK JAYKUMAR CHHOWALA SON OF SHRI JAYKUMAR GANDALAL, AGED 58 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT SY. NO.16/1, RAYASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU -560099.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, LGSTO-26, DGSTO-4, TTMC BUILDING, 6^TH FLOOR, BMTC BUS DEPOT, 80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. JYOTHI M. MARADI, HCGP)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING NO. CTO/LGSTO26/16(4)/DRC-07/13/2024-25 DATED 22/05/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A).

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:17818 WP No. 9569 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent.

¶24

The petitioner has called in question the

¶25

correctness of the validity of the order of adjudication at Annexure-A dated 22.05.2024.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed is an ex-parte order with no benefit of any reply to the show-cause notice and it is submitted that the petitioner would meet the grounds raised in the show-cause notice and accordingly, the lapse in not filing reply to the show-cause notice may be condoned and the order of adjudication may be set aside and the matter be remitted to the stage of reply to show-cause notice. It is

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:17818 WP No. 9569 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

further submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was also granted.

¶31

Learned HCGP submits that show-cause notice was uploaded on the portal and the petitioner was required to make out a reply.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the amendment made to Section 16(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, with retrospective effect and considering the orders as ex-parte orders, the matter may be remitted back.

¶33

Perused the order at Annexure-A. It is not in dispute that the order is passed without benefit of any reply to the show-cause notice by the petitioner. The authority has adjudicated the proceedings while disallowing the claim of ITC which order is passed on the basis of material available.

¶34

Taking note that the order passed is an ex-

¶35

parte order and the contention raised, it would be

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:17818 WP No. 9569 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

¶39

appropriate to set aside the order at Annexure-A and remit the matter back to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice.

¶40

The petitioner to appear before the respondent without fresh notice on 29.04.2026. Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Karnataka Advocates Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court Building, Bengaluru. All contentions are kept open.

¶41

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶42

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶43

MCR

Ami Enterprises v. the Commercial Tax Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ami Enterprises v. the Commercial Tax Officer

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

T. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. v. K. Jagadish Babu Vs State of Karnataka

The Mysore Stoneware Pipes and Potteries Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. a S Sampath Kumar Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri. N Eregowda Vs the Commissioner

Sri. Raju Since Dead by His Lrs., Vs the State of Karnataka