Disposed¶44

Sri. A.S. Sampath Kumar, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/9617/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGST Act/KGST Act Section 73 versus Section 74 adjudication; Section 128A amnesty scheme introduced by Finance Act, 2024; Notification No.21/2024 dated 08.10.2024 timelines; GST demand based on TDS statement/Form26AS for tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20; pre-GST regime Work Contract Services; Explanation-II to Section 74 'suppression'; waiver of interest and penalty; assessment orders Annexures D1, E1, F1 read as Section 73 orders; Articles 226 and 227 writ petition; Karnataka High Court 2026; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Assessment Orders (Annexures D1, E1 and F1) read as Orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act; second respondent to pass orders accordingly; petitioner entitled to file applications under the Section 128A scheme in terms of the Notification dated 08.10.2024. ¶44

Sri. A.S. Sampath Kumar, Vs State of Karnataka — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court must permit adjudication under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act (instead of Section 74) so that the petitioner can avail the benefit of the Scheme under Section 128A as introduced by the Finance Act, 2024. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

Since the petitioner was willing to offer taxes, the petition was to be disposed of by calling upon the second respondent to pass orders treating the impugned Order as an Order under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The subject receipts were not part of the petitioner's Returns, and the Court opined that there was no deliberate omission or suppression.

¶43

Key takeaways

The impugned Assessment Orders (Annexures D1, E1 and F1) are read as Orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act.ratio¶43
The petitioner is entitled to file applications in terms of the Notification dated 08.10.2024 (Section 128A scheme timelines).ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru — W.P. No. 9617 of 2026 (T-RES), decided 10 June 2026 (B M Shyam Prasad J). GST was demanded from the petitioner, a works contractor, for tax periods 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 on the basis of TDS statements/Form26AS for Work Contract Services executed for State Government organisations before the GST regime; show cause notices alleged deliberate omission/suppression and adjudication orders were concluded (impugned Assessment Orders, Annexures D1, E1 and F1), sought to be treated as Section 74 orders under the CGST Act/KGST Act. Seeking the Section 128A Scheme (introduced by the Finance Act, 2024; timelines notified vide Notification No.21/2024 dated 08.10.2024) and the attendant waiver of interest and penalty, the petitioner prayed that the orders be treated as Section 73 orders. Observing that the receipts were not part of the returns but that there was no deliberate omission or suppression, and noting the petitioner's willingness to offer taxes, the Court read the impugned Assessment Orders as Orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act and held the petitioner entitled to file applications in terms of the Notification dated 08.10.2024. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28102 WP No. 9617 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9617 OF 2026 (T-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. A.S. SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O. SRI. N. SRINIVASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO.36, AREHALLI VIL, NELAVAGILU POST, NANDAGUDI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE - 562 122.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA B HANJER, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

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

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-5.10, DGSTO-5, ROOM NO.606, 6^TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, VTK-2, RAJENDRANAGAR, NGV COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 047.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28102 WP No. 9617 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT, NO.1088/302/2, WARD NO.14, PETECHAMANAHALLI, VIJAYASHREE NILAYA, BYPASS, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K. HEMAKUMAR, AGA)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF ANY WRIT DECLARING THAT THE DEMAND OF GST FOR THE TAX PERIODS 2017-18, 2018-19 AND 2019-20 ON THE BASIS OF TDS STATEMENT / FORM26AS IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND IN EXCESS OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX / STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACTS, 2017 AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The question for consideration is whether this

¶28

Court must permit adjudication under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:28102 WP No. 9617 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

short, the 'CGST Act/KGST Act'] so that the pet itioner can avail the benefit of the Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act/KGST Act as introduced by the Finance Act, 2024. The petitioner's case is that the adjudication is based on the TDS deducted by the different State Government Organizations for whom the petitioner has executed Work Contract Services for the period prior to the GST regime and the petitioner has not filed returns because of the understanding that he would not be liable to pay any GST for the services rendered prior to the GST Regime.

¶33

Sri Raghavendra B. Hanjer, the learned

¶34

counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the show cause notices are issued alleging deliberate omission and there are concluded adjudication orders based on those show cause notices, this Court may consider directing the second respondent to pass orders to treat these impugned adjudication orders to

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:28102 WP No. 9617 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

be orders under Section 73 [ instead of Section 74 ] of

¶39

the CGST Act/KGST Act as that would entitle the petitioner to claim the benefit of the Scheme under Section 128A of the CGST Act/KGST Act in terms of the timelines notified vide Notification No.21/2024 dated 08.10.2024.

¶40

Sri K. Hema Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of this request. The learned Additional Government Advocate invites this Court's attention to the import of the expression 'suppression' as found in Explanation-II appended to Section 74 of the CGST Act/KGST Act. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner, who is willing to offer taxes, should be allowed the benefit of waiver of interest and penalty notwithstanding his case that the returns are filed without disclosing the liability only because the services were rendered prior to the GST regime.

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28102 WP No. 9617 of 2026

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

This Court must observe that the subject receipts are not part of the petitioner's Returns. This Court is persuaded to opine that there is no deliberate omission or suppression, and because the petitioner is willing to offer taxes subject to the benefit of the claim, this Court is also of the view that the petition must be disposed of calling upon the second respondent to pass orders treating the impugned Order to be Order under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act. As such, the impugned Assessment Orders - Annexures - D1, E1 and F1 are read as Orders under Section 73 of the CGST Act/KGST Act with the petitioner being entitled to file applications in terms of the Notification dated 08.10.2024.

¶44

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

Sri. A.S. Sampath Kumar, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. A.S. Sampath Kumar, 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

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