M/S. Reliflex Exim Services (Opc) Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2026WP/4388/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST ITC reconciliation GSTR-3B versus GSTR-2A; ex-parte Section 73 KGST/CGST adjudication order set aside with remand to Show-Cause Notice stage; Section 16(4) KGST Act belated ITC claim ineligible; excess ITC finding; 10% pre-deposit of disputed tax condition; COVID-19 delay in replying to SCN; appearance on 08.04.2026; contentions kept open; writ petition (T-RES) under Articles 226 and 227; Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LGSTO-027 Bengaluru; FY 2019-20; Karnataka High Court 2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders at Annexures-A and A1 set aside; matter remitted to the stage of reply to the Show-Cause Notice; petitioner to appear before the respondent on 08.04.2026 and deposit 10% of the disputed tax (under each order) within 3 weeks; all contentions kept open. ¶¶54

M/S. Reliflex Exim Services (Opc) Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the ex-parte adjudication orders at Annexures-A and A1 for FY 2019-20 — one rejecting ITC as belatedly claimed in view of Section 16(4) KGST Act, the other finding excess ITC in GSTR-3B vis-à-vis GSTR-2A — should be set aside so that the petitioner can file a reply to the Show-Cause Notice and demonstrate reconciliation of ITC.

¶¶29

Court's answer

On the petitioner's undertaking to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, the Order at Annexures-'A' and 'A1' is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the stage of reply to the Show-Cause Notice.

¶¶45

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is to appear before the respondent on 08.04.2026 without further notice.

¶¶47

Key takeaways

10% of the disputed demand raised under each of the Orders at Annexures-'A' and 'A1' is to be satisfied within 3 weeks.ratio¶¶49
All contentions are kept open; if the petitioner is absent on the next date, the indulgence granted by the Court shall stand rescinded, and the petitioner is to co-operate in conclusion of the proceedings as per law.ratio¶¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (S Sunil Dutt Yadav J), W.P. No. 4388 of 2026 (T-RES), decided 05.03.2026: Writ petition by M/s Reliflex Exim Services (OPC) Pvt. Ltd. against two ex-parte GST orders for FY 2019-20 — (i) adjudication order dated 21.04.2023 (Annexure-A) under Section 73 of KGST/CGST Act rejecting ITC as belatedly claimed in light of Section 16(4) KGST Act; and (ii) order dated 28.08.2024 (Annexure-A1) under the CGST/KGST Acts noting excess ITC in GSTR-3B as compared to GSTR-2A uploaded by the supplier. The petitioner had not replied to the Show-Cause Notice, citing reasons beyond its control including the COVID-19 pandemic, and sought an opportunity to reconcile the GSTR-3B/GSTR-2A discrepancy. The Court set aside both orders and remitted the matter to the stage of reply to the Show-Cause Notice, on the petitioner's undertaking to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within 3 weeks and to appear before the respondent on 08.04.2026 without further notice; all contentions kept open, with the indulgence to stand rescinded if the petitioner remains absent. Petition disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13499 WP No. 4388 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4388 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. RELIFLEX EXIM SERVICES (OPC) PVT. LTD., (COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013) NO. 78 SY. NO. 120/2, DUO TOWN, MANSON ANJANPURA, 80 FEET ROAD GUNDAPPA LAYOUT, GOTTIGERE, BENGALURU - 560 083

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SWAMY M M.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SHARADAVANI B COMMERCIAL TAXES Location: HIGH LGSTO-027, DGSTO-4, COURT OF TTMC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KARNATAKA KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 083

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI HEMA KUMAR K. AGA )

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13499 WP No. 4388 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ADJUDICATION ORDER DATED 21.04.2023 BEARING NO.ACCT/LGSTO27/DRC07/16(4)/3/2022-23 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 73 OF KGST/CGST ACT FOR THE F. Y. APRIL, 2019 MARCH, 2020 AND ORDER DATED 28.08.2024 PASSED IN NO. ACCT/LGSTO-27/DRC07/143/2024-25 BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER THE CGST/KGST ACTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-2020, RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND A1. AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Sri Hema Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to accept notice for the respondent.

¶22

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the impugned 'Order of Adjudication' dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Respondent under Section 73 of KGST/CGST Act for the Financial Year, April, 2019,- March,

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13499 WP No. 4388 of 2026

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

2020 and impugned Order dated 28.08.2024 passed by

¶26

the respondent under the CGST/KGST Acts for the Financial Year 2019-2020 respectively at Annexure-'A' and 'A1'.

¶27

It is submitted that, the petitioner did not file

¶28

reply to the Show-Cause notice due to certain reasons beyond their control including COVID-19 Pandemic.

¶29

It is submitted that the Orders passed are exparte Orders and the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to satisfy the Authority regarding alleged discrepancies between Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-2A.

¶30

Perused the impugned 'Orders' at Annexure-'A'

¶31

and Annexure-'A1'.

¶32

The petitioner submits that the discrepancy as allegedly noticed by the revenue regarding the ITC available as per GSTR-3B and ITC available as per GSTR-

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:13499 WP No. 4388 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

2A is a matter for reconciliation which would be

¶37

demonstrated by placing appropriate material.

¶38

Insofar as impugned 'Order' at Annexure-'A' is concerned, the Authority has rejected the claim of ITC on the ground that the claim was made belatedly. It is further observed that, in light of Section 16(4) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (for short 'KGST Act') filing of returns beyond due date prescribed for filing of annual returns would render the claim for ITC in-eligible.

¶39

Insofar as the impugned Order at Annexure-'A1' is concerned, it is noticed that the Authority has concluded the proceedings ex-parte, while observing that there is an excess claim of ITC in GSTR-3B return as compared to GSTR-2A return, uploaded by the supplier.

¶40

In both these matters, the petitioner submits

¶41

that they would appear before the Authority and make out

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13499 WP No. 4388 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

their case and meet the grounds raised in the Show-Cause Notice.

¶45

Accordingly, in light of the submission made by the petitioner and as the petitioner undertakes to make deposit of 10% of the disputed tax in both the Order at Annexure-'A' and Annexure-'A1', Order could be passed putting the petitioner on terms. As the petitioner has offered to make payment to ensure that there will be no revenue loss for the present, it would be appropriate to set aside Order at Annexures-'A' and 'A1', and remit the matter back to the stage of reply to the Show-Cause Notice.

¶46

The petitioner would appear before the

¶47

respondent on 08.04.2026 without further notice.

¶48

10% of the disputed demand raised insofar as

¶49

the Order at Annexures-'A' and 'A1' respectively to be satisfied within 3 weeks from today.

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:13499 WP No. 4388 of 2026

¶51

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

All contentions are kept open. Needless to state that, if petitioner is absent on the next date, indulgence granted by this Court would stand rescinded. The petitioner also undertakes to co-operate in conclusion of the proceedings as per law.

¶54

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of .

¶55

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶56

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

M/S. Reliflex Exim Services (Opc) Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Reliflex Exim Services (Opc) Pvt. Ltd., v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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 Bhawar Life Style Vs Assistant Commissioner Central Tax

Chikkanayakanahalli Narayanappa Srinivas Murthy Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Sri Padmavathi Marketing Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt C Devika Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkategowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Muthu C Vs the State of Karnataka