BLACKFISH TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The writ petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Despite which respondent No.1 has stated that there is no reply received, which is contrary to the records. The same violates the principle of natural justice. As such, this Court pass the following; i. ii. ORDER The writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is…
Judgment
(BY SRI. VIPIN UPADHYAY., ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX EAST DIVISION BENGALURU, KARNATAKA LGSTO-045, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560038
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX BENGALURU, KARNATAKA EAST LGSTO-045, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-56003
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 (BY SRI. M.N. KUMAR., ASG FOR R3 SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK., AGA FOR R1 & R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25744 WP No. 12876 of 2026 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO. ACCTYLGSTO- 45/ADJ/T.3647/2025-26 DATED 15.12.2025 (IMPUGNED ORDER) AND THE DRC-07 REFERENCE NO. ZD2912252192299 DATED 29.12.2025 (DRC-07) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 UNDER SECTION 73(9) OF THE CGST ACT, 2017/ KGST ACT, 2017 (ANNEXURE A AND ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; a) b) c) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or the Order-in-Original No. direction, quashing ACCT/LGSTO-45/Adj/T.3647/2025-26 15.12.2025 (Impugned Order) and the DRC-07 Reference 29.12.2025 (DRC-07') passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017/ KGST Act, 2017 (Annexure-A and Annexure-B). ZD2912252192299 No. this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction remanding the matter to the Respondent No.1 for fresh adjudication after affording the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing, and after duly considering the replies and documents already submitted by the Petitioner. For such further and other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25744 WP No. 12876 of 2026 HC-KAR
2. The petitioner is challenging the Order-in-Original bearing No.ACCT/LGSTO-45/Adj/T.3647/2025-26
15.12.2025 DRC-07 Reference No.ZD2912252192299 dated 29.12.2025 passed by respondent No.1 under Section 739 of the CGST Act, 2017/KGST Act, 2017 produced at Annexure-A and B.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a show-cause notice in terms of DRC-01 having been received on 10.06.2025 was replied to by the petitioner on 02.07.2025 by email as also the details thereof had been uploaded onto the portal of the respondents on 02.08.2025. Despite which respondent No.1 in the impugned order stated that, “in response to DRC-01 dated 10.06.2025, notice the Tax Payer has not filed any reply nor discharged the applicable liability along with the interest and penalty”.
His submission therefore is that a detailed reply with about 14 annexures have not been considered by - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25744 WP No. 12876 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent No.1, resulting in the impugned order being passed without consideration of the reply of the petitioner.
A perusal of the documents indeed indicates that there is a detailed reply which has been submitted by the petitioner accompanied by 14 documents which have also been placed on record as Annexure J1 to the present petition. The acknowledgment on the portal has also been placed on record, so also the email printout has been placed on record.
Operative part
Despite which respondent No.1 has stated that there is no reply received, which is contrary to the records. The same violates the principle of natural justice. As such, this Court pass the following; i. ii. ORDER The writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued, the Order-in-Original bearing No.ACCT/LGSTO-45/Adj/T.3647/2025- 26 dated 15.12.2025 (Impugned Order) and the DRC-07 Reference No.ZD2912252192299 - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25744 WP No. 12876 of 2026 HC-KAR dated 29.12.2025 (DRC-07') passed by Respondent No.1 at Annexure-A and Annexure- B are hereby quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration. Respondent No.1 shall consider the reply along with all the documents which have been furnished by the petitioner as also offered an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. iv. Since the order is passed in the presence of both the counsels, the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 without requirement of further notice on 11.00 a.m. on
17.06.2026. Respondent No.1 shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass necessary orders. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.