##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19938-DB STRP No. 51 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

SALES TAX REVISION PETITION No. 51 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1. SRI K.M. JAYESH (MANAGING PARTNER), M/S SRI RAM POWER CONTROLS,

No.1/4, LAKSHMAIAH INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, ABBIGERE VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 090.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI ATUL KRISHNA RAO ALUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

Digitally signed by VANIJIYA THERIGE KARYALAYA -1, VINUTHA B S

9^TH MAIN, GANDHI NAGAR, Location:

High Court of BENGALURU 560 090.

Karnataka …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ADITYA VIKRAM BHAT, AGA)

THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.04.2025, PASSED IN ST. APPEAL No. 36/2021 ON THE FILE OF KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2021 PASSED IN VAT.AP. No.214/2018-19 (A.Y.2010-11) ON THE FILE OF JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-6) DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR THE TAX PERIODS

FROM APRIL 2010 TO MARCH 2011.

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19938-DB STRP No. 51 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION 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 Atul Krishna Rao Alur, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Aditya Vikram Bhat, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the respondent.

2. This Sales Tax Revision Petition is filed under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (for short, ‘KVAT Act’) by the dealer, assailing the order dated 28.04.2025 passed in STA No.36/2021 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,

Bengaluru (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

3. The petition raises the following questions of law for

consideration by this Court:

a) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right is disallowing the ITC made from the Registered dealer."

b) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in denial of Input Tax Credit on the ground of alleged de-registration of the selling dealer is justified when the dealer was validly registered at the time of purchase and

issued proper tax invoices?"

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19938-DB STRP No. 51 of 2025

HC-KAR

c) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the rectification order passed under section 69 of the

KVAT Act."

d) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in dev ting the issue of registration and deregistration to the input tax

credit"

e) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in denying the ITC on the ground that, the suppliers are from deregistered dealer, when the Registration was

cancelled retrospectively"

d) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the rectification and appellate orders violate the principles of natural justice by rejecting the rectification application without providing a proper

opportunity of hearing?"

f) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the e-Sugam notification can be misapplied to deny Input Tax Credit for periods prior to its

applicability?"

g) "WHETHER on facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty and interest is justified when the Petitioner had a valid claim and complied with the provisions of the KVAT Act,

2003?"

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of power transformers and is registered as a dealer under the KVAT Act. Reassessment for the financial year April 2010 to March 2011 was completed, wherein input tax credit of ₹14,27,669/- was

allowed.

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19938-DB STRP No. 51 of 2025

HC-KAR

4.1 Subsequently, proceedings under Section 69(1) of the Act were initiated on noticin