Karnataka High Court
M/S Freshgreen Agro Exports Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes on 23 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9095
WP No. 102368 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 102368 OF 2025 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S FRESHGREEN AGRO EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,
SY. NO.93/4, 93/8, 94/4, DEVARAGUDDA ROAD,
RANEBENNUR-581115, KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. KARIBASAPPA JADAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560009.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT),
VAGEESH NAGAR, RANEBENNUR,
VIJAYALAKSHMI KARNATAKA-581115.
M KANKUPPI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
i. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR IN THE LIKE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2024
PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.ACCT/ADT/RNR/GST-
/2024-25, AND THE SUMMARY OF THE ORDER FORM GST
DRC-07 BEARING REF NO.ZD2912240583583, ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT IS HEREWITH ENCLOSED AND PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-D AND E.
ii. ISSUE WRIT OF PROHIBITION, NOT TO PROCEED FURTHER
STEPS OR MEASURES OR ANY SUCH KIND OF INITIATIVES
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9095
WP No. 102368 of 2025
HC-KAR
PERTAINING TO RECOVERY(S) OVER THE IMPUGNED DEMAND
MADE THEREOF VIDE-ORDER DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED BY
2ND RESPONDENT VIDE NO.ACCT/ADT/RNR/GST-/2024-25,
AND THE SUMMARY OF THE ORDER FORM GST DRC-07
BEARING REF NO.ZD2912240583583, ISSUED BY 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for the
respondents.
2. Petitioner is a Private Limited Company carrying
activities of agricultural products exporting Gherkins for
various countries. It is also registered under the KGST Act
and CGST Act.
3. Petitioner filed his returns for the assessment
year 2020-2021 before the concerned authority. Thereafter,
respondent No.2 got issued notice and initiated the
assessment proceedings. In response to the audit report, the
petitioner filed a representation. Thereafter, respondent No.2
got issued show cause notice dated 20.06.2024 under
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9095
HC-KAR
Section 73(5) of the KGST and CGST Act, 2017, for the
period 2020-2021. By considering the reply given by the
petitioner, authorities dropped the proceedings after being
satisfied with contents of the reply. However, the respondent
authorities proceeded to continue with the proceedings with
respect to the other issues in the show cause notice.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that due to paucity of time, the petitioner could
not file its reply to the show cause notice so also due to
illness of its Auditor. Hence, respondent No.2 authority
proceeded to pass an adjudication order under Section 73(9)
read with Section 50 of the GST Act vide order dated
18.12.2024. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the order passed by the 2nd respondent is not
maintainable, the same requires to be set aside. He has
relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Bharat Mint and Allied Chemicals vs. Commissioner
Commercial Tax and Others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine
All 1088. It is further contended that the respondent after
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9095
HC-KAR
issuance of show cause notice has not provided opportunity
to the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the order, which
is bad in law and same requires to be set aside so also it is
contended that the respondent has failed to appreciate the
claim of interest amount on the belated returns as per the
notification No.31/2020 Central Tax dated 03.04.2020
despite the same, disallowed the claim of the petitioner
which is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has also raised several other grounds seeking for
setting aside the impugned order.
5. Per Contra, the learned AGA contends that the
petition is not maintainable for the reason that there is an
alternative efficacious remedy available under Section 107 of
the GST Act, 2017 on any order passed under Section 73(9)
of the GST Act. On this ground, the learned AGA contends
that the petitioner requires to be relegated to approach the
appellate authority and seek appropriate remedy before the
said authority.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9095
HC-KAR
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned AGA for the respondents.
7. Without adverting to the merits of the matter and
so also the contentions raised by the petitioner, prima-facie
it is seen that there is an appeal remedy contemplated on
any order passed under Section 73(9) of the GST Act.
Therefore, the petitioner herein would have to be invariably
relegated to the appellate authority.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is ready and
willing to deposit 10% of the tax amount.
9. Placing his submission on record, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is disposed of.
(ii) Two weeks time is granted to the petitioner to
approach the appellate authority.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9095
HC-KAR
(iii) Petitioner shall deposit 10% of the tax amount.
The impugned order shall not be precipitated
by the respondent on deposit of 10% of the tax
amount.
(iv) Respondent shall deal with the matter in
accordance with law by providing an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
thereafter pass suitable orders in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
Kmv
Ct:mck
