M/S Daivik Developers Vs State of Karnataka

(A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) 2^ND FLOOR, 334/28, 14^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.K VASUDEVA SHETTY

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR B., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERICAL TAXES (AUDIT)-3.9, 2^ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20815 WP No. 10246 of 2026

HC-KAR

SHANTINAGAR,

BENGALURU-560 027

THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, P B NO.28, KANAKADASA ROAD, UDUPI-576 101

¶24

THE BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA, BANNANJE BRANCH, KALLYANI VITTAL TOWER, MAIN ROAD, BANNANJE, UDUPI-576 101

¶25

… RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. JYOTI MARADI, HCGP)

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE FORM GST DRC-13 DATED 05/02/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FORM GST DRC-13 DATED 24/02/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION, ISSUED BY R3 DEMANDING RS. 85,92,118/AND ETC.

¶28

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts

¶32

notice for respondents 1 to 3.

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner that an order of

¶34

adjudication came to be passed by respondent No. 3 on

¶35

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20815 WP No. 10246 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

28.01.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred first appeal and while doing so, petitioner is stated to have deposited the entirety of the disputed tax amount of Rs.28,84,680/-. It is further submitted that the first appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 15.10.2025. Petitioner submits that thereafter recovery notice has been issued.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entirety of the tax liability has been cleared as is evident from the entries in the Electronic Liability Ledger at Annexure-E. Attention is drawn to the entries on 13.02.2025 and 28.04.2025. It is submitted that both CGST and SGST tax demand have been cleared and what would remain is only interest and penalty. It is further submitted that this aspect is further clarified by virtue of the contents in Form GST APL-01.

¶39

It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for time till 30.06.2026 to file the appeal before the

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20815 WP No. 10246 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Tribunal and in light of petitioner having cleared the entirety of tax demand, the authorities could not have taken steps for recovery.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶44

in terms of the representation at Annexure-H, petitioner had made it clear that once the filing window for the impugned order is enabled, he would file an appeal.

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶46

submits that the aspect of payment is a matter for confirmation upon instructions.

¶47

It is to be noticed that insofar as the intention

¶48

to file the appeal, in terms of Annexure-H petitioner has made his intention of filing appeal clear. The entries in the Electronic Liability Ledger, prima facie indicates that tax component which is the subject matter of order in the first appeal has been cleared. If that were to be so, in terms of Section 112(9) of the CGST Act, there cannot be any steps for recovery. Recovery would stand stayed.

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20815 WP No. 10246 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

Accordingly, Form GST DRC-13 at Annexures-A

¶52

and B are set aside. Needless to state, petitioner is to file an appeal in terms of his undertaking and in the event of any discrepancy regarding payment made as regards tax component, liberty is reserved to the revenue to move for further orders. In light of the same, any steps for recovery if initiated stand rescinded.

¶53

Issuance of notice to respondents 4 and 5 - Bank is waived in light of disposal of the petition relegating

¶54

the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of his undertaking.

¶55

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶56

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶57

VP

M/S Daivik Developers v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Daivik Developers v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S South India Company Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Dnr Properties Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt.Huchamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Felicity Adobe LLP Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

C Maheshkumar Vs the State of Karnataka by

Hi Tech Services Vs Office of the Superintendent