- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33827 WP No. 11196 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11196 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SRI KRISHNA HARDWARE REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. T.G. KRISHNAMURTHY, SON OF T.R. GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, KADIRI ROAD, CHELUR - 563 134. CHICKBALLAPURA DIST. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. KASHINATH KALMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. RAMA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33827 WP No. 11196 of 2026 BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO - 183, OLD RTO BUILDING, KIADB IND. AREA CHICKBALLAPURA - 562 101. 5. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) - 5, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE -560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S B TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2025 FOR TAX PERIODS FALLING IN THE PERIOD 2019-20 IN APPEAL GST.AP. NO.974/24-25 (ANNEXURE-A) IS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the constitutionality of Section 16[2][c] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33827 WP No. 11196 of 2026 Services Tax Act, 2017 [CGST/SGST Act] while impugning the Appellate Authority's Order dated 29.12.2025 [Annexure-A] and the Order of Adjudication dated 17.08.2024 [Annexure-B] under Section 73 of the 'CGST/SGST Act. The proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act are initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has claimed excess Input Tax Credit [ITC]. 2. The petitioner is issued with both the Intimation in Form GST DRC-01A on 21.08.2023 and Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 14.09.2023. However, the petitioner has filed no response resulting in the Adjudication Order dated 17.08.2024. The Appellate Authority has partly allowed the appeal but observing that the petitioner has failed to produce Certificates in terms of the extant Circular and therefore is not eligible to any relief in the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33827 WP No. 11196 of 2026 3. Sri R. Chandrashekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K. Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate, are heard for the disposal of the petition. The petitioner has enclosed invoices and certain ledger extracts to assert that the reason for the allegation of excess availment of ITC is because a supplier has belatedly uploaded the details while another supplier has made certain erroneous declarations and that the petitioner could not prevail upon such suppliers in time because the suppliers are outside the State of Karnataka. 4. Sri R. Chandrashekar argues that the petitioner could not produce Certificates, which would be permissible in terms of the Circulars dated 27.12.2022 and 17.07.2023, to justify the claim of genuine transactions because the petitioner was not served with either the Intimation or Show Cause Notice. Sri K. Hema Kumar is heard on whether there must be interference limited to the extent of restoring - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33827 WP No. 11196 of 2026 the proceedings for reconsideration, with Sri R. Chandrasekhar categorically stating that if there is a restoration of the proceedings, the petitioner will not pursue its grievance on the constitutionality of Section 16[2][c] of the CGST/SGST Act. 5. The Adjudication Order is an ex parte order, and the Appellate Order is because the petitioner has not filed the requisite Certificates. The petitioner relies upon certain invoices and ledger extracts to justify the genuineness of the transaction and the ITC claimed. The petitioner is also categorical that in terms of the afore Circulars, the petitioner can file Certificates. If the petitioner files such Certificates as permissible in terms of the Circulars, there could be a re-examination without further precipitation, and a remand for these purposes would be more efficacious than relegating the petitioner to the second appellate remedy. Hence the following - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33827 WP No. 11196 of 2026 ORDER The petition stands disposed of quashing the Adjudication Order dated 17.08.2024 [Annexure- B] and the Order-in-Appeal dated 29.12.2025 [Annexure-A] restoring the proceedings with liberty to the petitioner to file all originals with requisite Certificates, without further notice, by 31.08.2026 with the fourth respondent. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5