Sri. Balbheem Katke Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)

SRI. BALBHEEM KATKE PROP KATKE EARTH MOVERS AGE 63 YEARS S/O LATE ARUN KATKE R/AT NO.3, CHAITANYA 1^ST CROSS, NEAR GOOD LUCK CIRCLE SWAMY VIVEKANANDA EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA- 577 204 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. MONISHA. SEN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAVEEN G.S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER N OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT), Location: OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF HIGH COMMERCIAL TAXES COURT OF (AUDIT), MALNAD DIVISION, KARNATAKA VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN, 'A' BLOCK, 12^TH CROSS, GOPALAGOWDA EXTENSION, SHIVAMOGGA- 577 201.

¶12

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA)

¶13

2 -

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:27907 WP No. 16848 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR SUCH OTHER ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ADJUDICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY FOR THE TAX PERIOD 2019-20, U/S 74(9) OF THE CGST/KGST ACT 2017, DATED 31.03.2026, BEARING REFERENCE NO.DCCT(AUDIT)/SMG/T /2025-26, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is issued with Work Orders dated 07.03.2019 [ Annexure-A ] and 05.03.2020 [ AnnexureB ] by the concerned from the Karnataka State Forest Department. The first Work Order is for the removal of lantana from the Bandipura forest region, and the second Work Order is for upgrading the elephant trenches in the same forest region.

¶21

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27907 WP No. 16848 of 2026

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

The petitioner's case is that the service is covered under the Notification dated 28.06.2017 [ Annexure-C ] and therefore is a Nil Rated Service . The respondent has concluded the proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'the Act '] and the relevant Rules opining that the work entrusted to the petitioner is not just labouroriented but also involves using materials like steel and cement and therefore the petitioner should have offered GST.

¶24

Ms. Monisha Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing on record a copy of the Communication dated 28.04.2026 issued by the Forest Conservator of Forest and Director, Bandipura Tiger Reserve, submits that the work entrusted to the petitioner only involved removal of lantana with root and plant vegetation as required and widening of the elephant trenches in the forest region. The learned

¶25

4 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:27907 WP No. 16848 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

counsel submits that the respondent could not have concluded the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act without considering these based only on a certain reference in the Work Order to the use of cement and steel. Mr. K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the Communication is post the impugned order and the petitioner cannot dispute that the Work Orders refer to use of steel and cement required and therefore the petitioner cannot take any exception with the impugned order before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

This Court must, at the first instance, observe that the Clarification dated 28.04.2026 from the Conservator of Forest and Director, Bandipur Tiger Reserve is categorical in stating that the work entrusted to the petitioner involved widening of elephant trenches removing earth and the clearing areas of lantana with roots and ensuring seeding for

¶30

5 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:27907 WP No. 16848 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

vegetation while recording that the reference to the use of steel and cement in the Work Order is part of a template and independent of the work entrusted to the petitioner. This Court must next observe that the respondent ought to have examined the scope of the work on a complete reading of the Work Orders to verify if indeed the work involved use of such materials and not gone by mere reference to “ steel or cement ” in the Work Orders without examining the payment terms.

¶34

This Court in the afore circumstances is

¶35

persuaded to opine that a case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restore the proceedings for reconsideration calling upon the respondent to examine the petitioner's liability under Section 74 of the Act in the light of the Clarification dated 28.04.2026 issued by the Conservator of Forest and Director, Bandipura Tiger Reserve and calling for further information as

¶36

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27907 WP No. 16848 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

may be necessary. In the light of the afore, the

¶39

following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

[A] The petition is allowed in-part, and the impugned order dated 31.03.2026 [ AnnexureF ] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration in the light of this Court's observations as aforesaid.

¶42

[B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof.

¶43

[C] The petitioner shall appear before the respondent without further notice on 13.07.2026.

¶44

SD/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶45

[SA ct:sr

Sri. Balbheem Katke v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Balbheem Katke v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit)

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

Smt. Saroja Biradar, Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (Bbmp)

Mfar Constructions Private Limited Vs Silver Stream Developers Private Limited

M/S Vijayalakshmi Marketing Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

Rns Infrastructure Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S. Attica Gold Private Limited Vs the Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (Dggi)

Sunil Kumar Dasarathan Vs the Commissioner