M/S Zeus INDIA vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. ACCT/LGSTO- 150/CR26-09/ASSN-104/2022-23/ DRC-1(80)/DRC- 07(63) DATED 27TH JANUARY 2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-150, BENGALURU - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-19 (TAX PERIOD APRIL 2018 TO MARCH 2019; (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DECLARING THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO THE ENTIRE INPUT TAX CREDIT OF INR 7,31,740 (COMPRISING IGST INR HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26457 4,24,364, CGST INR 1,53,688, AND SGST 1,53,688) FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-19, AND THAT THE DEMANDS FOR INTEREST OF 4,31,225 AND PENALTY OF 73,174 LEVIED UNDER THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURI ICTION, AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 27.01.2023 and the Summary of Order [Annexure-A] with a prayer for declaration that it is entitled to claim Income Tax Credit [ITC] for the financial year 2018-19 and that the demands for interest and penalty are illegal. The impugned order is after the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC - 01 under Section 73 (1) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’] but the petitioner has not filed any response. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26457
The petitioner has approached this Court calling this order dated 27.01.2023 now [after more than three years] contending that it has filed its monthly returns for the relevant Tax paid before 05.03.2020 and because it is filed before 30.11.2021 the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the amendment to Section 165 of the Act and the notification dated 27.09.2024,
Sri Harish Vashist, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues for intervention in the light of these circumstances. Sri Hema Kumar K., the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents, does not dispute that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of consideration of the returns filed prior to 30.11.2021 in view of certain decisions of the Supreme Court, including the decision in W.P.No.7217/2026 [T-RES]. However, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that this Court may consider that HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26457 the petitioner has not approached the Court immediately after the notification dated 27.09.2024. 4. A copy of the order in W.P.No.7217/2026 is produced, and this Court has observed thus while directing the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s ITC claim in the light of the observations in W.P.No.6883/2026[T-RES], which is disposed of on 11.03.2026. “Needless to state that the returns having been filed by the petitioner within the cut-off date as stipulated under sub-clause (5) to Section 16 and relates to the period as mentioned therein, accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled for such claim. The respondent Authority to reconsider the matter and re-look into the claim of ITC in light of the observations made above and to re- adjudicate the matter. All other contentions are kept open.”
In the light of these circumstances, the petition is allowed-in-part quashing the order of adjudication HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26457 dated 27.01.2023 calling upon the authority to reconsider and examine whether the petitioner must be allowed to claim ITC in terms of the returns filed before 30.11.2021. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
SA Ct:sr
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.