[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Unnathi Digital Edge (P) Limited vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19266
WP No. 7913 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 7913 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. UNNATHI DIGITAL EDGE (P) LIMITED,
GROUND FLOOR, 482, MATHOSHRI,
THIMMAIAH ROAD, OPP. RELIANCE FRESH,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010,
GSTIN-29AABCU3055F1ZE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. RAKESH MEHTA P.,
(A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013)
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by MAMATHA
R THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CENTRAL TAXES,
KARNATAKA DIVISION-2, WEST COMMISSIONERATE,
1ST FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560070.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH., ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ADJUDICATION ORDER IN ORIGINAL DATED
13.02.2025 IN OIO SI.NO. 213/2024-25/WD-2 AND FILE NO.
GEXCOM / SOR/11834 / 2024-CGST-RANGE-D-WEST-DIV-2-
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19266
WP No. 7913 of 2026
HC-KAR
COMM-BENG (W) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE-A UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE CENTRAL GOODS
AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 LEVYING TAX, INTEREST AND
PENALTY UNDER THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
ACT AND STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 ONLY
TO THE EXTENT IT DISALLOWS/REJECTS THE CLAIM OF THE
PETITIONER, BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question validity of the
Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the Central
Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 at Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that insofar as
the aspect of mismatch in Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed in
respect of import of goods during the financial year 2020-
21 amounting to Rs.37,69,495/-, the discussion of the
authority does not reveal application of mind and the
contentions of the petitioner including as regards reversal
of tax of Rs.13,07,324.84/- has not been taken note of
and further the observation that bill of entries are found to
NC: 2026:KHC:19266
HC-KAR
have a mismatch with the address of additional place of
business on the portal is a conclusion that is arrived at
without taking note of relevant facts as pleaded in para-16
of the writ petition, which is an answer.
3. Perused the impugned order. Insofar as the
aspect of mismatch, no doubt there is a reference at
para-16.5.3 regarding the Taxpayer's reply. However, as
pointed out by the petitioner, prima-facie such aspect of
reversal of ITC availed of Rs.13,07,324.84/-, does not
appear to have been adverted.
4. Further, insofar as verification of bill of entries,
though the authority has recorded a finding that the
address mentioned in bill of entries does not match with
the address of additional place of business given on the
portal and that amendments to the PPoB address was also
checked and the address mentioned in bill of entries does
not appear, the said finding requires re-consideration in
light of the pleadings in para-16 of the writ petition.
NC: 2026:KHC:19266
HC-KAR
5. The petitioner has relied on the averment made
in para-16 of the writ petition. The said averment reads as
follows:
"16. The petitioner submits that in so far as
mismatch of address between bill of entries and
GST registration records is concerned, the
petitioner had shifted its principal business
premises to GF, 482, Mathoshri, Thimmaiah Road,
Rajajinajar, Opp. Reliance Fresh, Bengaluru -
560010 with effect from 08/09/2020. However,
the change in business address was not amended
in the Importer Exporter Code (IEC) and only
amended with effect from 17/07/2021. In view of
the above, the address as per bill of entries
continued to reflect the old address during the
impugned periods. If the respondent afforded a
fair opportunity calling for explanation in this
regard before concluding the adjudication
proceedings, the petitioner could have clarified the
same. However, the respondent has unilaterally
passed the impugned order without affording any
opportunity to the petitioner thus flouting the
principles of natural justice."
NC: 2026:KHC:19266
HC-KAR
6. Only on such point, matter requires
reconsideration. No doubt, learned counsel for the revenue
would strenuously contend that sufficient opportunities are
given and draws attention to the opportunity of personal
hearing granted on 23.12.2024, 31.12.2024 and
10.01.2025.
7. However, insofar as the discussion made above
as regards mismatch of ITC availed and also finding under
such issue regarding genuineness of bills of entries, matter
requires reconsideration at the hands of the authority.
Accordingly, the order only insofar as the aspect of
mismatch in ITC availed, in respect of import of goods
during the financial year 2020-21, amounting to
Rs.37,69,495/- and consequential interest on penalty, is
remitted for reconsideration. All contentions are kept to
open.
NC: 2026:KHC:19266
HC-KAR
8. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A is set
aside and matter is remitted only as regards the aspect
referred to above.
9. Petitioner to appear before the respondent
without further notice on 11.05.2026. Needless to state,
petitioner is at liberty to produce additional documents to
substantiate their case insofar as mismatch referred to
above.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
MCR
