- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47781-DB STRP No. 21 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 21 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AUDIT 204 DVO-2 VTK-2 BENGALURU-560047 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VAIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA (APPEALS)-2 SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560047 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA) AND: M/S S L N ESTATES NO3/1 18TH MAIN 1ST CROSS Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47781-DB STRP No. 21 of 2023 MUNESHWARA BLOCK BENGALURU-560026 TIN 29750696302 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SYED JAMAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHANTESH T S.,ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2022 PASSED IN STA NO.15/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2020 PASSED IN VAT.AP.47/2019-20 (A.Y.2013-14) ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-2, BENGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2019 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-2.4, DVO-2, BENGALURU, FOR THE TAX PERIOD OF APRIL 2013 TO MARCH 2014. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47781-DB STRP No. 21 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The Authorities are aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2022 in STA No.15/2021 on the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 29.09.2022, has allowed the respondent's appeal setting aside the appellate Authority’s order dated 30.12.2020 under Section 62(6) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 [for short, 'the KVAT Act']. The Tribunal has, in interfering with this order dated 30.12.2020, also interfered with the order dated 13.06.2019 under Section 69 of the KVAT Act restoring the reassessment order dated 20.03.2019. The Tribunal has consequentially directed the Assessing Authority to give credit to the respondent for purchases made from M/s. Sri. Venkateshwara Reddy Mix Concrete. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47781-DB STRP No. 21 of 2023 2. The appeal is admitted for hearing on the question of law1, which is commonly framed not just for this petition but also for the other petitions. This petition is de-tagged from the other petitions and taken up for final disposal admitting the following question: Whether the order dated 13.06.2019 under Section 69 of the KVAT Act could be sustained if notice is not given as contemplated under Subclause 2 of the same. Mr. Aditya Vikram Bhat, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners, with the assistance of the records and the correspondence, places on record that the respondent is not issued with the notice of the proposed rectification. 1 Whether the burden under Section 70 of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 has been rightly cast and whether the materials placed on record have been duly considered to opine that such burden is discharged or not. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47781-DB STRP No. 21 of 2023 3. The Section 69(2) of the KVAT Act is categorical in stipulating that any amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or otherwise increasing the liability of an assessee shall not be made unless notice of the intention to do so is given and the person has the opportunity to show cause against such amendment or increase. If it is now brought on record that the notice as aforesaid is not issued, it would be trite that the rectification order dated 13.06.2019 cannot be sustained, and therefore, the petition must be disposed of observing that the further proceedings will also fail as these would be of no avail in law because opportunity to the respondent, which is made mandatory under the Section, is denied. 4. Mr. Aditya Vikram Bhat submits that even if there is interference on such ground, this Court, subject to the liberty to the respondent to show that there is no mistake apparent to justify an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47781-DB STRP No. 21 of 2023 enhancement or increase in the liability, must observe that the petitioners would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings with the advantage of exclusion of time as contemplated under Section 40(3) of the KVAT Act. The learned Government Advocate elaborates in stating that because a rectification order would be deemed to be an assessment/reassessment order under Section 69(4) of the KVAT Act, the petitioners can seek exclusion of the time spent with the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court. 5. Mr. Syed Jamal, the learned counsel for the respondent, is heard even on this aspect. This Court is of the view that leaving open all questions, including whether the petitioners could seek exclusion of time, the petition must be disposed of answering the question now framed in favour of the respondent with just orders. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47781-DB STRP No. 21 of 2023 ORDER a. The petition stands disposed of declaring that the rectification order dated 13.06.2019 under Section 69 of the KVAT Act is bad-in-law for want of notice and opportunity to the respondent as contemplated under Section 69(2) thereof and also holding that all further proceedings would be of no avail. b. The petitioners, subject to all just exceptions and with the observation that all questions are left open to be considered, are reserved with liberty to initiate fresh action under Section 69 of the KVAT Act. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RB