BASAVARAJ vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT PETITION NO. 202236 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.BASAVARAJ
S/O VITHOBA DWARANAHALLI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: CIVIL CONTRACTOR
R/AT VISHAL NAGAR BEHIND
KSRTC WORK SHOP VIJAYAPURA
DISTRICT VIJAYAPURA-586214
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SWETA
KULKARNI
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-1)
AFZALPUR TAKKE,
VIJAYAPUR-586102
2. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-2)
AFZALPUR TAKKE, VIJAYAPUR-586102
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (1)
ISSUE A WRIT OR SUCH OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19/04/2024 AND
28/03/2024 AND 18/02/2025 AND PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENTS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C, C1 & C2; (2)
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO
GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking following prayers:
“(1) Issue a writ or such other order in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order dated 19/04/2024 and
28/03/2024 and 18/02/2025 and passed by the
respondents produced as Annexure-C, C1 & C2;
(2) Pass such other orders as this court deems fit to
grant in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard Sri Sandeep Vijaykumar, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Viranagouda Biradar, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and
perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the respondent No.1, without providing sufficient
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
opportunity, proceeded to pass assessment orders for the
year 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. It is
submitted that the impugned orders indicate that the
show-cause notice is issued. However, the order does not
refer the date of show-cause notice nor does it indicate as
to when the show-cause notice was served on the
petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned
orders indicate that e-mails were sent communicating to
the tax practitioner who has filed returns on behalf of the
petitioner – company. However, the said tax practitioner
had never informed the petitioner with regard to the show-
cause notice served upon the petitioner. Hence, he seeks
to remand the matter back to the authority with an
opportunity to place his objections. Hence, he seeks to
allow the writ petition.
4. Per contra , learned AGA appearing for the
respondents, vehemently opposed the writ petition and
submitted that these impugned orders are appealable
orders under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
Act, 2017 (for short, the ‘GST Act’). It is submitted that
the impugned orders clearly indicate that the petitioner
has been served with the show-cause notice, the petitioner
failed to appear before the authority and any further delay
would cause prejudice to the State exchequer as the
demand amount is more. Learned AGA fairly concedes that
now the impugned orders cannot be challenged in view of
the period of limitation contemplated under the Act.
Hence, if the Court is inclined to remand the matter back
by considering the similar decisions, the petitioner may be
directed to deposit 20% of the demand amount. Hence, he
seeks to pass appropriate orders.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the
respondents and meticulously perused the material
available on record.
6. The petitioner herein claims to be engaged in
the work of contracts and undertakes work from various
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
Government and local bodies in the State of Karnataka. It
is averred that the petitioner is regularly filing the returns.
However, without intimation or show-cause notice to the
petitioner, impugned orders came to be passed. The
perusal of the impugned orders at Annexure-C to C2 dated
19.04.2024, 28.03.2024, and 18.02.2025 indicate that the
show-cause notices were issued. Though the orders
indicate the date of the show-cause notice served on the
petitioner, no material has been placed on record to
substantiate whether show-cause notice was served on the
petitioner or not. The order impugned also refers to the
emails sent to the tax practitioner who is the
representative of the tax payer. The said statement also
does not indicate as to the date on which the emails were
sent or details of the email.
7. Be that as it may, the grievance of the
petitioner is that the impugned orders are passed without
providing an opportunity to the petitioner to place the
objections before the authority. In my considered view,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
without going into the merits of the case, it would be
appropriate to direct the authorities to reconsider the case
of the petitioner by providing an opportunity to file
objections. It is to be noticed that the impugned orders
are appealable orders under Section 107 of the GST Act.
However, at this stage, the petitioner would not be able to
prefer an appeal as the statute contemplates period of
limitation to prefer appeal and the said limitation cannot
be condoned. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, considering the decision
rendered by this Court in the case of Sri. Siddappa vs.
1
Assistant Commissioner , I am of the view that it would
be appropriate to direct the authorities to reconsider the
case of the petitioner on merits. However, the same would
be subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the tax
demand under the impugned orders. Hence, I proceed to
pass the following:
1
W.P.No.204270/2025 disposed of on 14.08.2026
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned orders dated 19.04.2024,
28.03.2024, and 18.02.2025 at Annexure-C
to C2 respectively, are set aside.
(iii) The petitioner is permitted to file objections
along with documents, if any, before the
authority within one month from the date of
receipt of the copy of the order.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the
respondent No.1 on 05.11.2026 and
appear before the respondent No.2 on
12.11.2026 without awaiting any notice
and make his submissions.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the tax
amount under the impugned orders.
(vi) It is made clear that if 20% of the tax
demand under the impugned orders is not
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11066
WP No. 202236 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030062202026
paid or the petitioner fails to appear on the
given dates, the impugned orders would
stand revived.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
swk
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8