- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14854-DB WA No. 2002 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 2002 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX 1ST FLOOR, BMTC BUS STAND KANAKAPURA ROAD BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE KARNATAKA 560070. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: M/S. ICEBERG FOODS LIMITED GSTIN 29AACCA6027EZX SHOP NO.42, PROPERTY NO.102 HANUMANTH NAGAR MANCHANAYAKANALLI BIDADHI HOBLI REPRESENTED BY IT’S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. BISWA RANJITH TRIPATHY (UNIT HEAD) REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA B HANJER, ADV.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/09/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.24987/2024 AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14854-DB WA No. 2002 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) This intra-Court appeal is filed by the Revenue Authority challenging the order dated 18.09.2025 passed in WP No. 24987/2024 (T-RES), whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 14.08.2024 and remitted the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh consideration. 2. Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant–Revenue, submits that prior to passing the Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2024, multiple opportunities were granted; however, the respondent– assessee failed to avail the same. It is further submitted that the respondent–assessee had replied to the show cause notice and was fully aware of the pendency of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the appellant–Revenue contends that the order of remand was unnecessary. It is further submitted that if the respondent–assessee had any grievance, the appropriate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14854-DB WA No. 2002 of 2025 remedy was to avail the statutory appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Per contra, Sri Raghavendra B. Hanjer, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–assessee, submits that the order passed by the Proper Officer merely records the number of hearings. It is contended that no notices were issued notifying the respondent–assessee of the dates of hearing. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not record the service of such notices. It is therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the Order-in- Original and remitting the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 5. Upon perusal of the Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2024, it is noticed that in paragraph No.13, the Proper Officer has recorded that three opportunities were afforded. However, the order is silent with regard to the service of notices on the respondent–assessee. It is the categorical - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14854-DB WA No. 2002 of 2025 submission of the learned counsel for the respondent–assessee that such notices were never served on the respondent– assessee. There is no material placed before this Court to establish the service of such notices on the respondent. Unless the hearing notices are duly served on the respondent, it cannot be held that the principles of natural justice have been complied with. 6. The learned Single Judge, having taken note of the aforesaid aspect, has rightly set aside the order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE BSV CT:bms