Sri Rajeshwari Lorry Service vs. Commercial Tax Officer Lgsto -25,Bengaluru
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the initiation of the proceedings under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’] as also the subsequent Adjudication Order and the Garnishee Notice issued. The details of the Show Cause Notice, the impugned Adjudication Order and the Garnishee Notice are as follows. Sl. No. Notices/ Orders Date Provisions of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Annexures 1 Show Cause Notice 28.06.2024 Rule 142[1A] A 2 Summary Order 29.06.2024 73 A1 HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010470112026 NC: 2026:KHC:38708 Summary Order 10.09.2024 73 r/w. Sections 6 and 20 of IGST Act A2 4 Order 11.09.2024 73 A3 5 Notice to third person 11.09.2024 Section 79[1][c] Rule 145[1] A4
Sri. Joseph Varghese, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled to be revoked only in February 2021, that the proceedings are initiated because of mismatch in the details between Forms GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B for the tax period between April 2020 and March 2021, that mismatch is allegedly because of the excessive Input Tax Credit [ITC] claimed by the petitioner on two counts: [a] M/s Prestige Nottinghill Investments has uploaded the details as a B2C transaction instead of B2B transaction and this is supported by a Certificate issued by this Entity on 18.06.2026. HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010470112026 NC: 2026:KHC:38708 [b] though the petitioner had claimed ITC in excess otherwise, has reversed such excess claim and filed Returns in Form GSTR-9 but this is not being noticed.
On the petitioner's failure to participate in the proceedings and the delay in approaching this Court, Sri. Joseph Varghese submits that the petitioner had engaged the services of a professional who is not acquainted with all the details that had to be uploaded and after the petitioner was served with the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner has pursued with M/s. Prestige Nottinghill Investments.
Sri. K Hema Kumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the first respondent, submits that the petitioner, having not availed the appellate remedy, cannot sustain a grievance before this Court and that the cause shown by the petitioner could also be tenuous. However, this HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010470112026 NC: 2026:KHC:38708 Court is persuaded to examine the two circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to answer whether there must be interference for restoration of the proceedings with another opportunity to the petitioner because inarguably the adjudication proceedings are ex parte proceedings.
The Adjudication Order is in the premise that it is required to safeguard the interest of the Revenue and because the petitioner has not responded to the Show Cause Notices. The petitioner asserts that the excess ITC claimed [excluding the declaration made as B2C transaction by M/s. Prestige Nottinghill Investments] is reversed and annual return filed indicating this reversal and that M/s. Prestige Nottinghill Investments has issued the Certificate dated 18.06.2026 stating that for April 2020, because the petitioner's GST registration was not active, it has declared the taxable value under B2C and discharged taxes correspondingly. If the HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010470112026 NC: 2026:KHC:38708 petitioner can demonstrate these two circumstances against the alleged mismatch, there may not be any responsibility. As such, this Court interferes only with the Adjudication Order and the Garnishee Notice restoring the proceedings to the first respondent with liberty to the petitioner to file a response, but on terms. Hence the following: ORDER The petition is allowed and the Adjudication Order dated 10.09.2024 [Annexure-A2] is quashed subject to the following terms. [i] The proceedings are restored to the respondent for due consideration subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the tax in demand by 25.09.2026 subject to the outcome in the restored proceedings. [ii] The petitioner is permitted to file, along with the certified copy of this Order, the HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010470112026 NC: 2026:KHC:38708 copies of the documents to show the genuineness of the transactions. [iii] The petitioner shall produce these documents by 25.09.2026 and the respondent shall consider these documents and then conclude the proceedings by a reasoned order. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.