M/S TARA AND MURTHY, vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, — WP/17075/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226, 227. Next hearing: 29th July 2026.

Next hearing 29-Jul-2026

CNR: KAHC010371242026

Filing Number

WP/16890/2026

Filing Date

03-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/17075/2026

Registration Date

08-Jun-2026

Judge

B M Shyam Prasad

Coram

B M Shyam Prasad

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 144 )

Sub-Category

RES-Residuary ( 112 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226, 227

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S TARA AND MURTHY,

    Adv. HARISH VASHISTH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

  2. 2.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-3.11,

  3. 3.COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENF.)-24,

  4. 4.COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,

Case History

  1. 29-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Jul-2026

    Fresh Matter/S

    B M Shyam Prasad

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    B M Shyam PrasadView PDF

    Case Summary: The High Court of Karnataka granted an ad interim (temporary) order in favor of M/S Tara and Murthy's petition challenging a GST adjudication order dated 30.03.2025 and a show cause notice dated 22.09.2025. The court found that the key question—whether a taxable event exists when a business transfer fails and only an advance remains—requires prima facie consideration. The case was adjourned to 29.07.2026 for further hearing, with respondents given liberty to complete pleadings and seek vacation of the interim order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 09-Jun-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 03-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17075/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: The High Court of Karnataka granted an ad interim (temporary) order in favor of M/S Tara and Murthy's petition challenging a GST adjudication order dated 30.03.2025 and a show cause notice dated 22.09.2025. The court found that the key question—whether a taxable event exists when a business transfer fails and only an advance remains—requires prima facie consideration. The case was adjourned to 29.07.2026 for further hearing, with respondents given liberty to complete pleadings and seek vacation of the interim order. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case