Access Developers Private Limited Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Access Developers Private Limited Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order-in-Original dated 09.09.2022 and the demand/recovery notice (Form GST DRC-13) dated 19.01.2026 quashed; proceedings restored to the respondent for reconsideration; petitioner directed to file response by 29.08.2026; respondent to consider all circumstances without non-suiting the petitioner on delay.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition may proceed despite the Order-in-Original being appealable under Section 107 of the Finance Act, 1994, in reliance on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The outcome of the writ petition turns on the circumstances recited (including the petitioner's assertion that it was not served notice or extended opportunity) notwithstanding that the petition was filed almost four years after the impugned order.

Key takeaways

All these circumstances, including the petitioner's statutory-provision contention that the subject transaction does not result in any consequence to pay certain taxes, must be considered before any liability is fastened on the petitioner.ratio¶44
The petition is allowed-in-part; the impugned Order-in-Original and the demand notice for tax, cess, interest and penalty dated 19.01.2026 are quashed and the proceedings restored to the respondent for reconsideration.ratio¶46
The petitioner shall, without further notice, file its response, if any, with the respondent by 29.08.2026, even without waiting for a certified copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Indirect Tax - Finance Act, 1994 - Order-in-Original Sl. No. 196/2022 SD-4 dated 09.09.2022 and recovery notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 19.01.2026 - writ petition filed almost four years later although the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Act, relying on a Co-ordinate Bench decision in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (W.P. No.11154/2023 and cts., dt. 03.07.2024) wherein proceedings were restored for reconsideration with due opportunity - petitioner asserted ex parte assessment without due service of notice, based on information furnished by the Income Tax Department under a CBDT-CBIT agreement - High Court allowed the petition in part, quashed the Order-in-Original and demand notice, restored proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration, directed the petitioner to file any response by 29.08.2026, and directed the respondent to consider all circumstances without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26156 WP No. 11631 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 11631 OF 2026 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

ACCESS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI S. SANDEEP REDDY SON OF SHRI K. SATHYANARAYANA AGED 40 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT 2^ND FLOOR 217, RAHEJA CHAMBERS, NO. 12, MUSEUM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 0014.

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX SOUTH DIVISION-4 BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE 7^TH FLOOR, 'C' WING KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26156 WP No. 11631 of 2026

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560034.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH.,ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH ORDER IN ORIGINAL SL. NO. 196/2022 SD-4 (2022095700000000 A1FD) DATED 09.09.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT (ANNX-A); QUASH RECOVERY NOTICE IN FORM GST DRC-13 BEARING FILE NO. GEXCOM/TAR/D/ST/3426/2025-CGST-DIV-SD-4COMMRTE) DATED 19.01.2026 (ANNX-B).

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 is aggrieved by the Order-inOriginal dated 09.09.2022 under the Finance Act, 1994 [for short, ' the Act' ]. The petitioner cannot dispute that this is an order that could be appealed

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26156 WP No. 11631 of 2026

HC-KAR

under Section 107 of the Act, but the petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint

Commissioner of Central Tax in W.P. No.11154/2023 and connected matters dated 03.07.2024 .

2. Mr. Pradyumna Hejib, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Orderin-Original is an ex parte order without due service of notice and is based on an information furnished by

the Income Tax Department acting under an agreement signed between the Central Board for Direct Taxes and the Central Board for Indirect Taxes but without due opportunity. The learned counsel argues that in very similar circumstances based on an undertaking given by the concerned from the department, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.11154/2023

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26156 WP No. 11631 of 2026

HC-KAR

and other matters [such as in W.P.No.20351/2024] restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with due opportunity.

3. Mr. Shishir Amaranath, a learned

Standing counsel who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, is heard and when queried, the learned counsel submits that the undertaking as recorded in W.P.No.11154/2023 was to ensure that the designated officers looked into complaints of similar nature but with march of time, the jurisdictional Officers, such as the respondent in the present case, are empowered to extend an opportunity and decide on the merits of the cause that could be shown.

4. This Court finds that the outcome in the writ petition must turn in the light of the afore circumstances notwithstanding the fact that the petition is filed almost four years from the date of the impugned order because the petitioner asserts that it

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:26156 WP No. 11631 of 2026

HC-KAR

has not been served with notice or been extended an opportunity othwerwise, and more importantly, the petitioner proposes to rely upon the statutory provisions to contend that the subject transaction does not result in any consequence to pay certain taxes. This Court finds that all these circumstances must be considered before a liability is fastened on the petitioner. Hence the following:

ORDER

[A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned Order-in-Original and the demand notice for tax, cess, interest and penalty dated 19.01.2026 [ Annexure - A ] are quashed restoring the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration.

[B] The petitioner shall, without further notice, file response, if any, with the respondent by 29.08.2026 even without waiting for a certified copy of this order.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26156 WP No. 11631 of 2026

HC-KAR

[C] The respondent shall consider all the

circumstances without non-suiting the

petitioner on the ground of delay.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

NV