M/S Mangalore Internet City Pvt Ltd v. The Superintendent of Central Tax

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:19326 WP(No.(6388(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(8 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(6388(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., M/S,MANGALORE,INTERNET,CITY,PVT,LTD, A,COMPANY,REGISTERED,UNDER, THE,INDIAN,COMPANIES,ACT,,1956, HAVING,REGISTERED,OFFICE,AT, 10-76/1,MANGAKLORE,HILLS, PREETHINAGAR,SHAKTHINAGAR,POST, MANGALORE,-575,016, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,GENERAL,MANAGER, AND,AUTHORISED,SIGNATORY, SRI,PRADEEP,UPENDRA,NAYAK, S/O,SRI,UPENDRA,T,NAYAK, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS, …,PETITIONER, Digitally signedtiby (BY,SRI.,VANI,H.,,ADVOCATE), VIJAYA0P Location: HIGH AND: COURT0OF KARNATAKA

1., THE,SUPERINTENDENT,OF,CENTRAL,TAX, OFFICE,OF,THE,SUPERINTENDENT,OF,CENTRAL,TAX, YEYYADI,RANGE,SOUTH,DIVISION, THROOM,NO.,403,,4 ,FLOOR,C,R,BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE,-570,001, …,RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,ARAVIND,V.,CHAVAN,,ADVOCATE), e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:19326 WP(No.(6388(of(2026 , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,(I),ISSUE,A,WRIT, OF,CERTIORARI,OR,WRIT,IN,THE,NATURE,OF,CERTIORARI,TO, QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, SHOW, CAUSE, NOTICE, BEARING, NO., 03/2023-24, DATED, 11.4.2023, ISSUED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT, UNDER,SECTION,74,FOR,THE,YEAR,2018-19,VIDE,ANNEXURE,E, AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,SUNIL,DUTT,YADAV ORAL(ORDER Petitioner, has, called, in, question, the, validity, of, the, order-in-original,passed,under,Section,74,of,the,CGST,Act, for, the, financial, year, 2018-19, at, Annexure-G, dated,

30.12.2025.,,

¶2The,brief,facts,that,are,of,relevance,for,disposal, of, the, petition, are, that, the, petitioner, is, stated, to, have, obtained, an, approval, of, plan, on, 24.08.2011, for, development,of,a,residential,layout.,It,is,further,submitted, that,construction,of,a,Villa,in,Plot,No.,126,was,completed,

on 08.07.2018 and the petitioner had applied for issuance of completion certificate with a competent authority. It is further submitted that the completion certificate was granted on

06.02.2019. In the interregnum, on

23.07.2018 petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell the villa and collected part advance which constituted only part of the sale consideration.

¶3It is submitted that after issuance of completion certificate on 06.02.2019, the petitioner executed the sale deed transferring title of the immovable property in favour of the purchaser on 29.03.2019.

¶4It is stated that the respondent has embarked upon adjudication on the ground that the petitioner is required to be subjected to liability in terms of Section 7(2) of the CGST Act read with Entry-5 of Schedule-II. It is the contention of the petitioner that in response to the show cause notice, detailed reply at Annexure-F had been submitted.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer of property was effected by way of registered sale deed only after the completion certificate and that the agreement of sale cannot be taken to be a conclusive date as transferring title. It is further submitted that though the completion certificate was issued on 06.02.2019, that by itself would not be conclusive in terms of the explanation to Entry-5 of Schedule-II of CGST Act. It is submitted that such aspect has not been taken note of appropriately by the authority and a cryptic reasoning is assigned at para 13 which requires reconsideration. It is submitted that the authority may be directed to reconsider the matter after taking note of the detailed reply and a fresh opportunity may be afforded to place all relevant legal authorities before the authority.

¶6Sri. Aravind Chavan, learned counsel submits that the adjudication is complete and the question raised by the petitioner is a matter to be canvassed in appeal.

¶7Perused the order. The discussion and findings at para 13 of the impugned order insofar as the contention of the petitioner has not been dealt with appropriately. The contentions raised by the petitioner as made out in the reply to the show cause notice as well as the scope of interpretation of explanation to Entry-5 requires reconsideration.

¶8Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-G is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority for reconsideration. All contentions on merits are kept open. Needless to state, the Authority to deal in detail with the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, as well as the legal contentions as made out in the petition that the petitioner states would be canvassed once again before the Authority.

¶9Petitioner to appear before respondent without further notice on 11.05.2026.

¶10In light of the above, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP