Disposed

M/S Touchstone Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Karnataka HC21 Nov 2024WP/30820/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice. The court granted the petitioner four weeks to reply and directed the respondent to consider cited judgments before taking further action.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; four weeks granted to reply; respondent to consider cited judgments before further action.

M/S Touchstone Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47435 WP No. 30820 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 30820 OF 2024 (T-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S TOUCHSTONE ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, 15/16, GROUND FLOOR, 4^TH CROSS, IST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. SHRIKANT ACHARYA G, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O GOVINTHOTA VASUDEVA ACHARYA, R/O B 83, BYSANI SKYWAY, JAYANAGAR 3^RD BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 011

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SOUTH DIVISION-03, BANGALORE SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC-TTMC KANAKAPURA ROAD, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560 070

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23/04/2024 BEARING FILE NO. GEXCOM/SOR/2999/2024-CGST-RANGE-DSD3-DIV-SD-3-

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:47435 WP No. 30820 of 2024

¶17

COMM.. SCN NO. /GST/2024-25/SD-3/AC, ISSUED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2018-19 TO 2022-23 BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SOUTH DIVISION-03, BANGALORE SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER - ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Aggrieved by the show cause notice issued under Section 74 of Central goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST / KGST Act') read with Section 20 of Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'IGST Act'), the petitioner is filed the instant writ petition.

¶21

The case of the petitioner is that he is involved in purchase of gift Vouchers from various brands and sale of such Vouchers to its customers to meet their gifting needs. It is submitted that neither the supplier of these vouchers charge GST nor the petitioner charges GST from its customers. It is further submitted that however, at the

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:47435 WP No. 30820 of 2024

¶23

time of redemption of the said vouchers, the actual supplier of goods or services discharges the applicable GST

¶24

on the supply undertaken by them. It is thus contended, the petitioner does not claim any input tax credit not collects GST from its customers and thus is not liable to tax as demand in the show cause notice. Further, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

¶25

M/S PREMIER SALES PROMOTION PVT LIMITED Vs.

¶26

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in 2023(2) TMI 130 and also the decision of the Hon'ble

¶27

Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ORS VS. M/S PREMIER SALES PROMOTION PVT LIMITED (SLP(Civil).No.47998/2023 dt: 13.12.2023).

¶28

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits, the facts in the case of the petitioner is different from the facts in the aforementioned judgments and he further submits that what has been issued by the petitioner is only a show cause notice and if he replies for the same, the said reply would be considered

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:47435 WP No. 30820 of 2024

¶31

appropriately by the respondent and a decision will be taken whether to pursue the show cause notice or drop the case against the petitioner. He further submits that the aforementioned judgments cited by the petitioner will be considered by the respondent-Authority while taking a decision.

¶32