M/S Rentease International Llp v. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:21916 WP(No.(10583(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( NDDATED(THIS(THE(22 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(10583(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:( M/S,RENTEASE,INTERNATIONAL,LLP,, SURVEY,NO.,71,,DASANAPURA,HOBLI,, HMT,MAIN,ROAD,,BENGALURU,RURAL,, KARNATAKA-,562162,, (REPRESENTED,BY,MEGHRAJ,SINGH,,, PARTNER,OF,M/S,RENTEASE,, INTERNATIONAL,LLP,,, PARTNERSHIP,FIRM,REGISTERED,UNDER,, LIMITED,LIABILITY,PARTNERSHIP,ACT,,2008), …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,RAGHURAMAN,V.,,SENIOR,ADVOCATE,FOR,, ,,,,,,SRI.,RAGHAVENDRA,C,R.,,ADVOCATE), Digitally signedtiby AND: VIJAYA0P Location: THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,OF,COMMERCIAL, HIGH TAXES,,(AUDIT),,DGSTO-6,,BENGALURU,,,COURT0OF KARNATAKA VANIJYA,THERIGE,SANKIRNA,,, SIDDARAMESHWARA,EXTENSION,,, JAYANAGAR,EAST,,TUMKUR,-,572103., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,K.,HEMA,KUMAR,,AGA), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, QUASHING, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, ISSUED, UNDER, SECTION, 73, BEARING, REFERENCE, NO.ZD290225006121Z, ALONG, WITH, THE,

SUMMARY OF THE ORDER IN FORM GST DRC-07 DATED

03.02.2025, FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2020 - MARCH 2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent.

¶2The petitioner has assailed the validity of the order of adjudication at Annexure-A as well as the order at Annexure-A1. The petitioner has sought for allied reliefs as well regarding the recovery proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that the authority has completed the adjudication proceedings and passed order at Annexure-A1 without benefit of any reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice.

¶3It is further submitted that the petitioner was unable to make out reply to the show-cause notice as they

were not aware and due to bonafide lapse they were not in a position to make out a reply. It is submitted that if an opportunity is granted by condoning the lapse, petitioner would be in a position to demonstrate that the discrepancies as made out do not exist.

¶4It is further submitted that insofar as parallel proceedings were initiated by the Central Government and petitioner has met the tax liability insofar as the proceedings initiated by the Central Authority. It is further submitted that such proceedings initiated by the Central Authority, though were subsequent to the proceedings by the State Authority, petitioner having met such liability, petitioner would take appropriate stand regarding the proceedings initiated by the State Authority by making out a detailed reply to the show cause.

¶5Having perused the order and noticing that the order is an exparte order without the benefit of reply to the show-cause notice and taking note of the contention

raised and asserted including that the petitioner would make out a case by reply to the show-cause notice and meet grounds raised therein, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner noticing that the adjudication relates to a factual aspect which requires material to be placed by the petitioner before the authority. It is noticed from perusal of the impugned order that matter relates to reconciliation between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A which would require factual appreciation which is also a reason for remitting the matter for reconsideration.

¶6Accordingly, the orders at Annexures-A and A1 are set aside and the consequential proceedings of recovery at Annexure-B is set aside. Matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice. All contentions are kept open.

¶7Though in due course, the Court insists on deposit of 10% of the tax demand, however in the present

case taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, no such condition is imposed. Petitioner to appear before the respondent without further notice on 18.05.2026. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR