- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8595 WP No. 104328 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104328 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. SHREENIDHI CONSTRUCTIONS, CTS NO.7140, MALAMARUTHI EXTENSION, GOURA ASHIRWAD APARTMENT, ANJINEYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI. BANDI SUNIL KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PUNEET I. BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT-2) OFFICE OF THE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, BELAGAVI-590001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VTK-1, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BENGLAURU-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE LIKE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2021 U/S 69(1)OF THE KVAT ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN NO. CTO/ADT2/VAT/2009-10/B AND THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 16.02.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BOTH PASSED VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8595 WP No. 104328 of 2025 RESPONDENT NO.1 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. b) ISSUE WRIT OF PROHIBITION NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE FURTHER STEPS OR MEASURES OR COERCIVE PROCEEDINGS OF ANY SUCH KIND OF INITIATIVES PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED, INCLUDING RECOVERY, UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in civil construction registered under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) with TIN 29390477086. The petitioner is carrying on civil work contracts since he is a registered dealer under the Goods and Service Tax Act and he has been regularly filing returns without any default or breach. 2. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.1 issued a notice under Sections 39(1), 72(2) and 36 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the book of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8595 WP No. 104328 of 2025 accounts and related documents for the Tax period from April 2009 to March 2010. The tax period of re-assessment pertains to the year 2009-2010. Respondent No.1 concluded the reassessment proceedings in the year 2009-10 vide order dated 30.03.2016 and imposed tax, interest and penalty totalling to Rs.11,91,436/- followed by further re-assessments by invoking Section 69 of Act 2021. Thereafter, issued notice of demand of tax on assessed/reassessed penalties to the petitioner. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no proper notice issued and the petitioner was not heard while passing the impugned notice and order of demand by the respondent. Therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice as the order being passed exparte without providing notice to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law and the same requires to be quashed. It is also submitted that the notices were affixed on the last shown address, as claimed, is unsubstantiated and improper and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and requires to be set aside. It is also - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8595 WP No. 104328 of 2025 submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the manual entry of the date appears to have been made solely to fall within 5 year limitation category period under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, he contends that rectification of order under Section 69 of the Act cannot be used to revisit the concluded assessment on merits. Learned counsel contends that there is violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the order requires to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA representing the respondent/State contends that the order i.e. passed is under Sections 39(1), 72(2) and 36 of the Act, which is amenable to an appeal under Section 62 of the Act. In the guise of the reassessment under Section 69 of the Act, the petitioner is trying to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All these matters would have to be adjudicated before the appellate Authority having jurisdiction to deal with the matter of disputed question of facts. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8595 WP No. 104328 of 2025 6. Admittedly, the respondents have issued notice under Sections 39(1) and 36 of the Act and passed orders. Same is not questioned by way of an appeal but the petitioner has sought for reassessment and reassessment has been done under Section 69(C) of the Act where the reassessment was enhanced to Rs.66,27,594/-. The petitioner contends that he is ready and wiling to make good the payment as ordered earlier under Sections 39(1), 72(2) and 36 of the KVAT Act if he is provided an opportunity of being heard and to place all books of accounts before the appellate authority and provide him a proper hearing. 7. In view of the said submission and there being an alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to exhaust before approaching this Court, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority and produce all such material and documents before the appellate authority. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8595 WP No. 104328 of 2025 ORDER i. This petition is disposed of. ii. The petitioner is given the liberty to approach the appellate authority to file an appeal under Section 62 of the Act challenging the order passed under Sections 39(1), 72(2) and 36 of the Act so also any order passed under Section 69(1) of the Act would amount to an order being passed under Section 39 i.e. the original order as contemplated under Section 69(4) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner shall be at liberty to place all material of books of account and be provided an opportunity of hearing before the appellate authority and the appellate authority shall decide the matter in accordance with law. iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE Kmv CT-MCK