BharatTaxGST

M/S. Kailash Roofing Solutions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/14127/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01031125202610 June 2026Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD6 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.K HEMA KUMAR., AGA
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST/SGST Act and an ex-parte adjudication order passed under Section 73(9) for the assessment period 2020-21, citing lack of reasonable opportunity and GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A mismatches.

Held

The Court dismissed the challenge to Section 16(2)(c) as the petitioner did not pursue it. However, it quashed the ex-parte adjudication order, restoring the proceedings to the respondent to provide the petitioner another opportunity to submit documents regarding supplier returns and tax remittances.

Key Issues

The key legal issues were the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and whether the ex-parte adjudication order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner regarding GSTR mismatches.

Sections Cited

Section 16(2)(c), Section 73(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27902 WP No. 14127 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.14127 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. KAILASH ROOFING SOLUTIONS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, NO.61, N.R.ROAD, BANGALORE-560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX YASHODA AGED 56 YEARS REGISTERED UNDER THE CGST ACT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K M SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-3.10, DGSTO-03, ROOM NO.229,2ND FLOOR,'B' BLOCK, TTMC/BMTC COMPLEX, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K HEMA KUMAR., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27902 WP No. 14127 of 2026 A WRIT OF DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION DECLARING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16(2) (C) OF CGST ACT/SGST ACT, 2017 AS BEING ILLEGAL, UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY AND THEREFORE TO BE STRUCK, DOWN AS VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14, 19 AND 300A; B) FORM ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE EXPARTE ORDER IN ORIGINAL ISSUED IN GST DRC-07 BEARING NO.CASE ACCT(A)-3.10/A.73/1000/2024-25 DATED 27.02.2025 PASSED U/S 73(9) OF THE GST/KGST BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD 2020-21, IN SO FOR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW, LACK OF JURISDICTION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27902 WP No. 14127 of 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has not only called in question the vires of Section 16[2][c] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’] but also the Adjudication Order dated 27.02.2025 [Annexure-D]. This Adjudication Order is premised in the assertion that the Show Cause Notice is issued to the petitioner, but it has filed no response.

Sri K M Shivayogiswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is categorical in stating that the petitioner does not propose to continue with the challenge to Section 16[2][c] of the Act because the petitioner has a good case on lack of reasonable opportunity, and the learned counsel submits that the proceedings are concluded because of a mismatch between the Input Tax Credit paid and claimed in Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A and short payment of tax in GSTR-3B compared to GSTR-1. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27902 Sri K Hemakumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard for the disposal of the petition, examining whether the petitioner is entitled to another reasonable opportunity. The respondent has referred to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC- 01 dated 19.10.2024 being issued and served through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and registered e-mail ID. The respondent has also referred to an opportunity of personal hearing being extended to the petitioner on 07.08.2024 observing that the petitioner has not availed this opportunity, but without further details of the opportunity so extended.

The petitioner contends that the mismatch between Forms GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A is only because the supplier has uploaded his Returns belatedly and remitted taxes thereafter. When these circumstances are considered, this Court is of the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27902 view that the petitioner must have another opportunity, and hence, the following. ORDER

The petition insofar as the challenge to Section 16[2][c] of the Act is dismissed, and the petition insofar as the challenge to the Adjudication Order dated 27.02.2025 [Annexure-D] is allowed quashing the same subject to the following terms. [a] The proceedings are restored to the respondent for due consideration. [b] The petitioner is permitted to file, along with the certified copy of this order, the details of the Returns filed by the Supplier and the taxes remitted. [c] The petitioner shall produce these documents by 13.07.2026 and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27902 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.