- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7557-DB STRP No. 17 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No. 17 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-6), BENGALURU 560 027. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, AUDIT 6.2, VAT DIVISION VI, KIADB BUILDING, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA) AND: 1. M/S HIL LTD., SY No.131, MACHOHALLI GATE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 091. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R. DAKSHINA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7557-DB STRP No. 17 of 2024 THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2021 PASSED IN STA.No.114/2020, ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2019 PASSED IN VAT.AP. 40/17-18 ON THE FILE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) 6, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.04.2017 PASSED UNDER SECTION 36(1) AND 72(2) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT 2003 BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT 6.2) DIVISION -VI, BENGALURU FOR THE TAX PERIOD FROM APRIL - 2010 TO MARCH -2011. 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 MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional Government Advocate for the petitioners and Sri R Dakshina Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Sales Tax Revision Petition is filed by the State under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenging the order dated 30.09.2021 passed in STA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7557-DB STRP No. 17 of 2024 No.114/2020 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”). 3. This petition is filed with a delay of 847 days. We shall first consider I.A. No.1/2024 filed seeking condonation of the said delay, before taking up the petition for consideration on merits. 3.1 An affidavit dated 23.12.2024 is filed in support of the application explaining the delay. The respondent has filed objections to the said application. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed a better affidavit dated 18.11.2025 placing further particulars on record, to which the respondent has filed detailed objections. 3.2 The order under challenge was passed by the Tribunal on 30.09.2021 and is stated to have been communicated on 04.12.2021. A Government Order authorising the office of the Advocate General to file the present petition was issued on 01.07.2022 and is stated to have been received in the office of the Advocate General on 25.07.2022. It is further averred that there was a change of Law Officers in the month of August - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7557-DB STRP No. 17 of 2024 2023. The present petition has been filed on 23.12.2024. It is contended that the delay has occurred due to the bona fide reasons stated above. 4. We have perused the affidavit in detail. A substantial portion of the delay remains unexplained, and part of the delay is sought to be justified on the routine ground of movement of files. 5. Though the impugned order is stated to have been received on 04.12.2021, the first correspondence is said to have commenced only on 07.06.2022 and then on 14.06.2022. Thereafter, it is stated that on 01.07.2022 steps were taken to secure the Government Order for filing the petition before this Court. It is further stated that the file was entrusted to the Law Officer on 15.07.2022, who allegedly conducted multiple meetings to clarify factual aspects and sought additional documents for drafting. However, the Government Order itself is stated to have been received in the office of the Advocate General only on 25.07.2022. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7557-DB STRP No. 17 of 2024 6. The delay is also attributed to a change of Law Officers, which, according to the affidavit, occurred in August 2023. However, no explanation whatsoever is offered for the period from 25.07.2022 till August 2023, which spans more than one year. Even thereafter, though the change of Law Officer is stated to have taken place in August 2023, the next reference to any discussion with the Law Officer appears only in December 2024. There is no explanation for the interregnum between August 2023 and December 2024, which is more than sixteen months. 7. The only other reason assigned is routine movement of files, which, in our considered view, cannot constitute a satisfactory or acceptable explanation for such inordinate delay. 8. We find that the affidavit does not satisfactorily explain the delay, even by furnishing minimally acceptable reasons. The explanations offered in support of condonation of the delay of 847 days are wholly insufficient. Accordingly, I.A. No.1/2024 is rejected. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7557-DB STRP No. 17 of 2024 9. In view of the rejection of I.A. No.1/2024 seeking condonation of the delay of 847 days in filing the present petition, the petition itself is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10