M/S Acruti Design Services Vs Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

M/S ACRUTI DESIGN SERVICES 164, CHOKKASANDRA MAIN ROAD, PEENYA, BENGALURU URBAN, KARNATAKA-560 057. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. P.JAGDEESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O. K R PARANJOTHI

¶11

… PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. BHAIRAV G V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) 6.3 - GSTO-6, 3^RD FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶16

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT) 6.7-GSTO-6, 3^RD FLOOR, KIADB BUILDING PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-56005

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:16852 WP No. 7854 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. JYOTI M., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI MADANAN PILLAI, CGC FOR R4)

¶24

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE FORM DRC-01A NOTICE DATED 16.10.2023, BEARING NO. ACCT (A) 6.7/DGSTO-8/ADJ-74/NO.02/2023-2024-ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, FOR THE FY 2023-2024 (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioner has called in question the validity of the

¶29

order at Annexure-A passed under Section 74 of the

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:16852 WP No. 7854 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act').

¶33

It is the case of the petitioner that the

¶34

petitioner was not aware of the proceedings as the notice was not served. It is further submitted that the premise under which the proceedings were initiated is regarding wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. It is submitted that in the absence of reply to the show cause notice, the authorities have proceeded to adjudicate and pass order at Annexure-A raising the demand. It is accordingly submitted that the order may be set aside and petitioner may be given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice by placing relevant material to demonstrate that the supplier does exist.

¶35

In light of such stand of the petitioner and

¶36

noticing that the order passed at Annexure-A is an ex-parte order without the benefit of any reply by the petitioner, it would be appropriate considering the

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16852 WP No. 7854 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

consequences that would follow from upholding the order

¶40

at Annexure-A, to set aside the order at Annexure-A while reserving liberty to make out reply to the show cause notice.

¶41

Accordingly, the order at Annexure-A is set aside and the matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice, copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-G. In light of setting aside of the order at Annexure-A, notices issued by the respondents to third parties under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, are required to be rescinded forthwith.

¶42

It is also noticed that pursuant to the order at Annexure-A, there has been recovery by adjustment in the Electronic Credit Ledger with respect to certain amount of tax dues. Needless to state, the adjustment in the

¶43

Electronic Credit Ledger would be subject to adjudication to be made as directed.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:16852 WP No. 7854 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Insofar as the notice at Annexure-B is

¶47

concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it amounts to parallel proceedings as the subject matter overlaps with the show cause notice at Annexure-G. It is submitted that the said proceeding also requires to be set aside.

¶48

The proceedings as regards Annexure-B is still

¶49

at the stage of reply. It would be appropriate, considering that the proceedings as regards the order at Annexure-A is set aside and the matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice enclosed at Annexure-G, that the proceedings at Annexure-B would also be clubbed along with the proceedings of the show cause notice at Annexure-G.

¶50

Petitioner is at liberty to make out reply to both

¶51

the said show cause notices at Annexures-G and B. All contentions of the petitioner as raised herein insofar as the notice at Annexure-B is kept open.

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:16852 WP No. 7854 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

The matter is remitted before respondent No.1

¶55

who is to conduct proceedings with respect to show cause notices at Annexure-G as well as Annexure-B. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.1 without further notice on 24.04.2026.

¶56

The petitioner to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Karnataka Advocate Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court Building, Bangalore.

¶57

In light of the above, writ petition is disposed of . All contentions are kept open.

¶58

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶59

VP

M/S Acruti Design Services v. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Acruti Design Services v. Office of the Deputy 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

Lnr Public School Trust Vs Assessment Unit

Shri Sathya Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

M/S. Maruthi Mechanical and Electricals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Gst)

Sri. S.A. Rasheed Vs the State of Karnataka

Boraiah Suresh, Vs Income Tax Officer

The Managing Director Vs Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes