Writ Was Dismissed as No Interference Was Required at This Stage and Assessee Was Directed to File Reply to SCN | HC

Case Details: Vaishan Traders IV v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 489 (Karnataka)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• C.M. Poonacha, J.
• Vishwanath Hegde & Smt. Tanuja Hegde, Advs. for the Petitioner. 
• Shivaprabhu Hiremath, AGA for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was a registered dealer. Pursuant to a search conducted under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax (KGST) Act, 2017, an order of seizure was issued and a communication was also issued where under the petitioner was notified of the discrepancies that had been noticed by the department upon verification of the documents produced by the petitioner.

The petitioner filed writ petition and contended that the procedure under Section 64(2) of the KGST Act had been undertaken without Section 67(1) of the KGST Act having been complied.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner had merely been afforded an opportunity of hearing after the department had set out the discrepancies as noticed by them. It was open to the petitioner to respond to the discrepancies and take all contentions permissible under law including the contentions with regard to Section 67(1) of the KGST Act. Therefore, the Court held that no interference was required at this stage.