- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35882-DB STRP No. 41 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No. 41 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. M/S BELLARY ISPAT(P)LTD., PLOT No.16, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, MONDAGIRI 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU ROAD, BELLARY 583 102. TIN No.29160377060, REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, T. SRINIVAS RAO. …PETITIONER (BY SRI E. I. SANMATHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI BHANU PRAKASH H. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL M.S. BUILDING, BENGALRUU 560 001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35882-DB STRP No. 41 of 2023 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE 577 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (AUDIT) -1 DVO, DAVANAGERE 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT,2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 PASSED IN STA No.201/2020 AND CROSS APPEAL IN STA No.1/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE STA No.201/2020 AND ALLOWING THE CROSS APPEAL IN STA.No.1/2022 AND FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 22.09.2020 PASSED IN CAS ORDER No. APPEAL No.KVAT/AP-120/2-19-20 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35882-DB STRP No. 41 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel Sri H.V. Bhanuprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State. 2. The petitioner-dealer is before this Court challenging the order dated 17.10.2023 in STA No.201/2020 and the Cross Appeal in STA No.01/2022, passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). 3. The petitioner has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: "1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the input tax after Six months was granted relief by this court in the case of judgment the state of Karnataka V/s. K.Bond polymers Pvt. Ltd., reported in lass (KAR) 2012 (3) 227 the tribunal ignoring the said judgment and disallowed the claim of the appellate is right? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 10 and 11 of the KVAT act the appellate entitled for the input tax. The tribunal disallowed the claim is in accordance to the maintainable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35882-DB STRP No. 41 of 2023 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in disallowing the qualified and brought forward excess tax against the claimed by the appellate is in accordance with law? 4. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse as the Tribunal has not granting sufficient opportunity to petitioner to argue the case in main appeal and failed to grant reasonable time considering that the matter was only of the year 2022"? 5. 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's order can be said as perverse as Tribunal failed to observe that petitioner was not represented in cross appeal preferred by State and court ought to have petitioner counsel to take notice"?" 4. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits at the outset that the petitioner was not represented in the appeal and cross appeal before the Tribunal, which culminated in the impugned order. Learned counsel contended that the Tribunal, being the last fact-finding authority, ought to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner before adjudicating the appeals on merits. It is further submitted that, if the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, the petitioner would be in a position to substantiate its case before the last fact-finding authority. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35882-DB STRP No. 41 of 2023 5. Per contra, Sri Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State, submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity, which, however, was not availed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has a remedy under Rule 28(a) of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) Regulations, 1979, to seek restoration of the appeal for fresh adjudication. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to entertain the petition to the limited extent and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, for the reasons stated hereinafter. 7. The appeal before the Tribunal was preferred by the petitioner, whereas the cross appeal was filed by the State. The Tribunal, in paragraph 6 of the impugned order, recorded that sufficient opportunities were granted. However, it has not specified the number of opportunities afforded to the petitioner to present its case. Be that as it may, we are inclined to grant the petitioner one further opportunity in the interest of substantial justice. Denial of such opportunity may result in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35882-DB STRP No. 41 of 2023 financial hardship to the petitioner. In any event, if the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, no prejudice is likely to be caused to the State. 8. Further, we note that this is not a case of denial of opportunity, but of non-availing the same. Although the default in appearance is attributable to the petitioner, in the interest of substantial justice, while remanding the matter, the petitioner is to be directed to pay costs. 9. In view of the foregoing, the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed-in-part. b) The order in STA No.201/2020 and Cross Appeal in STA No.01/2022 dated 17.10.2023 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. c) The appeals are restored and remanded to the file of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited before the High Court Legal Services Authority. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35882-DB STRP No. 41 of 2023 d) The contention of the both the parties are kept open. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18