- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34616-DB STRP No. 57 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 57 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S. DEN BROADHBAND LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SKYNET CABLE NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED) REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHRI PANDAPPA R SURANAGI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.1017/38, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU URBAN, KARNATAKA- 560010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOESPH VARGHESE, ADV. FOR SMT. LAKSHMI MENON, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. HEREIN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU- 560 009. 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)-3 ‘B’ BLOCK, BMTC BUILDING SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX (AUDIT)-3.6 DVO-3, ‘B’ BLOCK BMTC BUILDING, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA VIKARAM BHAT, AGA) Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34616-DB STRP No. 57 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINDING THEREIN TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN COMMERCIAL TAX APPEAL NO.42/2022 DATED 04.06.2024 (VIDE ANNEXURE A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The above revision petition by assessee is filed under Section 65 of the Karnataka Valued Added Tax Act, 2003 questioning the order dated 04.06.2024 in Commercial Tax Appeal No.42/2022 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal at Bengaluru, raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessment order passed is not an order issued against a non-existent entity, even though the original company merged with the current company after the KVAT Act was repealed? 2. whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the Set Top Box provided by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34616-DB STRP No. 57 of 2025 petitioner is a deemed sale in the form of a transfer of right to use the article or goods for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration as per Section 2(29)(d) of the KVAT Act?” 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in STRP.No.19/2024 and connected petitions, disposed of on 18.02.2025, answered the identical substantial questions of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3. Following the said decision, the present revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3