M/S. Flagship Construction LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Sri M. N. Shankare Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 10.06.2026 has argued HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29342 for interference with the impugned orders on these grounds. First, on the ground that the Adjudication Orders are by the different authorities for the same tax period; second, on the ground of amendment to Form GST DRC-03 dated 24.03.2021 is permissible. To support the first ground, the learned counsel submits that the first and the second respondents could not have passed two Adjudication Orders on similar grounds for the same tax period.

Sri M. N. Shankare Gowda, insofar as the second ground, relies upon the decision of High Court of Bombay in Rajesh Developer Private Limited and another V. Union of India and Others in W.P.[L] No.3736/2024 and canvasses that [a] the petitioner by an inadvertent error has mentioned the tax period as April 2019 - March 2020 in Form GST DRC - 03 instead of April 2020 - March 2021; [b] the petitioner has no tax dues for the period April 2019 – March 2020; [c] if indeed the authorities could HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29342 verify that there is any due for the tax period April 2019 – March 2020, they could recommence the proceedings.

Sri K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, does not dispute that two Adjudication Orders could not have been for the same tax period while pointing out that the first Adjudication Order is after scrutiny under Section 61 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’] and the second Adjudication Order is after audit as contemplated under Section 65 of the Act. This should be conclusive insofar as the petitioner's grievance with two Adjudication Orders.

On the petitioner's request for amendment of Form GST DRC-03 dated 24.03.2021, Sri K. Hema Kumar submits that the authorities cannot permit amendment of the intimation in GST DRC-03 in the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29342 absence of enabling statutory provisions and the difficulties that would be encountered such as that this intimation, like other intimations, are filed digitally on the portal designed and managed by the Central Government Authorities.

This Court must observe that neither of these two submissions can undermine the basis upon which the Bombay High Court has observed that there must be permission to amend the intimation. The Bombay High Court has observed that given the diversity in which the assessee and the traders operate, they could have limited expertise and resources and there is every likelihood of an inadvertent and bona fide error, and that therefore, the assessee must have opportunity to adopt themselves to the new regime and also to correct inadvertent and bona fide errors. This Court respectfully agrees with this view. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29342

The petitioner is categorical in stating that in GST DRC-03 dated 24.03.2021 the petitioner has inadvertently mentioned the tax period as April 2019 - March 2020 and that there are no dues for this tax period with Sri M.N.Shankare Gowda stating on behalf of the petitioner that it would also be open to the authorities to examine whether the petitioner is indeed in due for this tax period and to act as permissible. There must be permission to the petitioner to amend Form GST DRC - 03 dated 24.03.2021 to show that the intimation is relevant to the tax period April 2020 - March 2021. 8. This Court recognizes that there could be difficulty for the authorities to permit amendment on the portal and therefore the petitioner must be permitted to file an amended physical copy of Form GST DRC-03 showing the applicable tax period as April 2020 – March 2021 with liberty to the authorities to verify the other returns filed for the tax HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29342 period April 2019 - March 2020 and decide on the just outcome that must be. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER