M/S Jai Shakti Engineering And Construction vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes - Karnataka High Court, 02 June 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25857 WP No. 14292 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14292 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S JAI SHAKTI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SY NO. 49/2 48/1A AND 48/1B, BUDIHAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU 562123. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER. GSTIN 29AAEFJ4640F1ZF …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOWRI SHANKER M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES LOCAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX OFFICE-66 DGSTO-06, 1ST FLOOR, KIADB BLDG. 14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU 560058 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25857 WP No. 14292 of 2026 2. AXIS BANK THROGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, GANDHIDHAM BRANCH, KUTCH DISTRICT GUJARAT 370 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ADJUDICATION ORDER NO. CTO/LGSTO-66/ADJ-269/2024-25 DATED 18-04-2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2018- 19; DIRECT, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION FROM THE STAGE OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, AFTER PROVIDING THE PETITIONER AN ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND TO FILE A DETAILED REPLY AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE FOR THE FY 2018-19; DIRECT, QUASHING THE CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERY NOTICE IN FORM GST DRC-13 DATED 05-03-2026 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BANKER, RESPONDENT NO.2 IN ANNEXURE- E. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25857 WP No. 14292 of 2026 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 of Adjudication under Section 73(9) read with Section 50 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the relevant Rules and concurrent provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This impugned order is for the tax period 2018-

19.

The petitioner has invoked this Court's juri iction against the impugned Order of Adjudication setting forth the ground of lack of reasonable opportunity.

Mr. Gowri Shanker, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that lack of reasonable opportunity is seen in [a] the first respondent causing E-mail on 25.01.2024, [b] recording that there are HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25857 errors in the DRC-01A and that fresh notice will be issued but in not issuing such fresh DRC-01A, [c] the first respondent issuing the notice in DRC-01 on 31.01.2024 and the first respondent observing that the notice sent by the Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due [RPAD] to the petitioner's registered place of residence is returned un-served with a remark that 'there is no such person at the address'. Mr. Shamanath Naik, the learned High Court Government Pleader who accepts notice for the first respondent, submits that this Court may not interfere on either ground because DRC-01A is issued and corrected DRC-01A is not a requirement in law and because the petitioner cannot dispute that a copy of the Show Cause Notice was made available on the common GST Portal and also served on the registered E-mail ID.

There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner is informed on 25.01.2024 that "a fresh notice" would HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25857 be issued and within a week thereafter a Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 is issued but correcting the error or informing the petitioner about the same. Further, it cannot be disputed that the physical copy of the notice is returned un-served. In the circumstances, this Court opines that the petitioner's case that it expected a fresh DRC-01A and therefore its consultant did not pay attention to the Portal or the E-mail merits acceptance. There is a lack of opportunity, and for complete adjudication, the petitioner must have an opportunity to file a response within a reasonable time. Hence, the following. ORDER

[A] The petition is allowed in-part quashing the Order of Adjudication dated 18.04.2024 [Annexure - A] restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with liberty to the petitioner to file online as well as a physical copy of the response, if any, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25857 to the DRC-01 notice dated 31.01.2024 within one [1] month from today without awaiting a certified copy of this order.

[B] It is needless to observe that the petitioner will not be at liberty to raise grounds of limitation.

[C] It is observed that all questions otherwise are open for consideration. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE