M/S Terra Bespoke Build Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes Lgsto 20
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order and subsequent appeal order under GST. The appellate authority rejected the appeal, opining that the petitioner failed to furnish a certificate justifying output tax paid by suppliers.
Held
The Court held that the grounds raised by the petitioner involved factual examination and that the petitioner should avail the alternate appellate remedy. The Court granted interim protection by deferring further proceedings for six weeks.
Key Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when alternate appellate remedy is available, and if the grounds raised require factual adjudication.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 107(11), Section 108
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has suffered an Adjudication Order dated 29.02.2024 [Annexure-B] under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short ‘the Act’] read with the provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules. The petitioner has called in question the Adjudication Order in an appeal under Section 107[11] of the Act unsuccessfully with the appellate Authority rejecting the appeal in GST.AP. No.249/2024-25 on 31.07.2025 [Annexure-C]. The appellate Authority has ultimately opined that the petitioner has not furnished the Certificate as contemplated under the relevant Board Circulars to justify the output tax being paid by the petitioner’s suppliers as mentioned in Form GSTR-3B. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31460 Sri Subrahmanya Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks this Court's indulgence on the grounds such as that [a] the Show Cause Notice is not signed, [b] before any action is taken against the petitioner, the proceedings must be initiated against the Supplier, and [c] the petitioner can reconcile certain transactions based on the documents now available, but could not reconcile all the transactions because the supplier has not responded to the emails.
Sri K Hemakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, rightly points out that all the three grounds would essentially involve examination of facts and that the petitioner can avail appellate remedy under Section 108 of the Act with the appellate Tribunal being recently constituted and this Tribunal, as the last fact finding authority, can examine all the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner must be HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31460 relegated to the alternate remedy, but with some interim protection. Hence, the following. ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of calling upon the Authorities to defer initiating further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Adjudication Order, consequent to the dismissal of the appeal for a period of six [6] weeks from today. [b] With this Court relegating the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, the time spent in prosecuting this petition must be excluded, and it is observed accordingly. (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.