Smt. Pushpavathi R vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Sri Venkatesh G., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings are concluded because of a mismatch between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and the ITC claimed by the petitioner and that the petitioner could not respond to either the intimation in Form GST DRC-01A or to HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31321 the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01. The learned counsel invites this Court’s attention to the following averment in the memorandum of petition. “The intimations/ communications/ notices were not effectively in the knowledge of the petitioner, as the same were sent to the email ID of the petitioner’s erstwhile consultant, who was no longer representing the petitioner at the relevant point in time’.

Sri Venkatesh G also submits that the Board Circulars dated 27.12.2022 and 17.07.2023 are issued covering the subject tax period which envisage an opportunity to a Registered Taxable Person [RTP] to produce documents to establish the genuineness of the transactions even if those are not declared by the supplier, and that this Court in WP No. 4917/20211 [M/s Instakart Services Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India and others] has read down the Section 16[2][c] of the CGST/ KGST Act allowing the 1 This Court’s order is dated 09.02.2026 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31321 benefit of ITC to bonafide purchasers/RTP provided that such purchaser/person has complied with all conditions under these provisions even of there is any default by a supplier.

Sri K Hemakumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, is heard for the disposal of the petition permitting the petitioner another opportunity in view of the above. The second respondent has referred to the show cause notice in GST DRC-01 dated 16.09.2023 and the opportunity being granted in the following terms: “Therefore, show cause notice dated 16.09.2023 under Section 73 (1) Read with Rules 100 (2) and 142 (1)(a) of Central/State Goods and Service Tax Act/Rules 2017 (Form GST DRC – 10) was served to the RTP to the e-mail address provided to the department as per the provisions of Section 169 of the KGST Act, 2017 by providing one more opportunity to pay the interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of show- cause notice. Further, an opportunity was HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31321 also provided to file any submission for the Tax/Penalty/Interest quantified in the show- cause notice. However, the taxable person neither paid the Tax/Penalty/Interest nor filed any submission for Show cause notice. Therefore, Taxable Person is hereby directed to make the payment of Tax/Penalty/Interest which are quantified in the show cause notice dated 16.09.2023 as detailed below within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order”.

The petitioner contends that the mismatch could be explained with the help of Lease Deeds, Bank Account Statements and the other records because the petitioner’s only exigible activity is renting out immovable properties to corporate clients. The petitioner’s appeal in No. GST.AP. 395/2025-26, which is delayed by 157 days, is rejected on grounds of limitation observing that the delay beyond 120 days from the date of the Adjudication Order cannot be condoned in law. The petitioner asserts that HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31321 because the Adjudication order is an ex-parte order,