M/S MARUTHI MARKETING INDIA, vs STATE OF KARNATAKA,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 25437 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S MARUTHI MARKETING INDIA,
A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
MR. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN,
HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
NO. GROUND FLOOR,
UTTARADI MUTT LANE,
CHICKPET CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560053
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRANAAV G. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
(COMMERCIAL TAXES),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560001
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-7
ND
ROOM NO. 221, 2 FLOOR,
BMTC BUILDING, TTMC 'B' BLOCK,
SHANTHINAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560027
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
(AUDIT)-1.10 DGSTO-1,
RD
3 FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING,
BMTC BUS STAND, ROOM NO. 33,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560022
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MALAVIKA PRASAD, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER-IN-APPEAL DATED 16.01.2026 BEARING
REFERENCE NO. ZD2901260880311 (ANNEXURE A)
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2, WHEREBY THE
PETITIONER'S STATUTORY APPEAL CAME TO BE
DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION; B)
DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO ENTERTAIN THE
PETITIONER'S STATUTORY APPEAL AND DECIDE THE
SAME ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW,
WITHOUT REJECTING THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF
LIMITATION. WITHIN SUCH TIME AS MAY BE
STIPULATED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT; C) WITHOUT
PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING PRAYERS, ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER-
IN-ORIGINAL NO. 02/2024-25 DATED 16.08.2024
(ANNEXURE B) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3;
D) CONSEQUENT UPON PRAYER (C), ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION REMANDING THE
PROCEEDINGS TO RESPONDENT NO. 3 FROM THE
STAGE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (ANNEXURE-E)
DATED 16.05.2024, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO
GRANT THE PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE A
REPLY, PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT,
RECONCILIATIONS AND ALL SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS, AFFORD A PERSONAL HEARING, AND
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
thereafter PASS A FRESH, REASONED AND SPEAKING
ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, a proprietary concern, has called
in question the following.
Sl
No
Orders/Notices Section of
the
CGST/KGST
Act/IGST Act
Date Annexure
1 Order-in-Appeal 107(11)
16.01.2026
A
r.w.s 20
2 Order-in-Original 73(9) 16.08.2024
B
3 Show Cause
73(1) 16.05.2024
E
Notice
The impugned Adjudication Order and the Order-in-
appeal are for the financial year 2019-20. The
Adjudication Order is an ex-parte Order, and the
Order-in-appeal is on the ground of limitation.
2. Mr. Pranaav G. Ambekar, the learned
counsel for the petitioner, submits the following.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
[a] the petitioner could not participate
in the adjudication proceedings for
bonafide reasons.
[b] The petitioner was not aware of the
Adjudication Order to avail the
appellate remedy in time, and even
otherwise, the Proprietor and his
brother, who was assisting him in
the conduct of the business, have
met with separate accidents
requiring prolonged hospitalization.
[c] The appeal could also not be filed in
time because of the above bonafide
reasons.
[d] The petitioner, with the dismissal of
the appeal on the ground of
limitation is without a remedy,
though has a good case on merits.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
3. In elaboration, Mr. Pranaav G. Ambekar
canvasses the following.
[A] The intimation and the Show Cause
Notice are addressed to the petitioner's
E-mail and the petitioner can state
without fear of contradiction, that the
mail was in the spam box. Therefore,
the petitioner could not respond either
to the intimation or Show Cause
Notice.
[B] The proceedings are commenced
because of the mismatch in GSTR-3B
and GSTR-2A alleging that there is
wrongful availment of ITC and that the
petitioner has not reversed Input Tax
Credit [ITC] within the timelines
contemplated under Rule 37 of the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
Central Goods and Services Tax Rules,
2017 [for short, ‘ the CGST Rules’ ].
[C] The petitioner has in fact reversed ITC
within time voluntarily in Form GSTR-
3B, and insofar as those supplies for
which payments have not been made
within time, the petitioner can also
produce invoices which on a
reconciliation will show that there is no
wrongful availment.
[D] The petitioner has in fact produced
such reconciliation statement in the
appeal which remains out of the zone
of consideration because the
petitioner's appeal is barred by
limitation.
Ms. Malavika Prasad, a learned High Court
Government Pleader who accepts notice for the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
respondents, is heard in the light of these
circumstances.
4. If the petitioner has voluntarily reversed
ITC insofar as those supplies for which payments
were not made within the time allowed under Rule 37
of the CGST Rules, those must be considered; and if
indeed a reconciliation of the invoices would show
that there is no wrongful availment, that must also
be considered. These have not been considered
because the petitioner has not participated in the
adjudication proceedings and the petitioner's appeal
is belated. The petitioner is categorical in stating that
its Proprietor came to know about the proceedings
only when the personnel from the Department
contacted him for recovery.
5. The petitioner also pleads bonfides
detailed the accident suffered by its proprietor and
the proprietor’s brother who was assisting him in the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
conduct of the business. These circumstances
congeal to persuade this Court to opine that there
must be an opportunity to the petitioner for complete
adjudication. In the circumstances, the following.
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed.
[B] The impugned Adjudication Order
dated 16.08.2024 [ Annexure – B ] and
the Order-in-appeal dated 16.01.2026
[ Annexure – A ] are quashed restoring
the proceedings to the stage of Show
Cause Notice dated 16.05.2024
[ Annexure – E ] with liberty to the
petitioner to file a detailed response
enclosing reconciliation invoice and
the relevant Form in GSTR to
substantiate its case.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55818
WP No. 25437 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010555112026
[C] The petitioner, without further notice
shall file the reply and the documents
with the third respondent by
30.11.2026 .
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
RB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1