M/S Terra Bespoke Build Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Lgsto 20

-e1e-e NC:(2026:KHC:31460( WP(No.(15411(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( e ( ( e A e INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e THDATEDATHISATHEA24 ADAYAOFAJUNE,A2026A e e BEFOREA e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A15411AOFA2026A(T-RES)A e BETWEEN:AAe A e - M/S-TERRA-BESPOKE-- e BUILD-PRIVATE-LIMITED-A-PRIVATE-LIMITED-COMPANY,--e INCORPORATED-UNDER-- e THE-COMPANIES-ACT,-2013-- e REPRESENTED-BY-ITS-DIRECTOR,-- SACHIN-JALAN--e S/O-LATE-SHRI-S.K.-JALAN-- e AGED-ABOUT-46-YEARS,-- e QUEST-OFFICE,-RAHEJA-TOWERS,-- TH10 -FLOOR,-MG-ROAD,-- eDigitally BANGALORE-560001.-signed by VANAMALA …PETITIONER-N e Location: (BY-SRI.-SUBRAHMANYA-BHAT.,-ADVOCATE)- HIGH AND:ACOURT OF KARNATAKA A

1.- THE-ASSISTANT-COMMISSIONER-OF-- COMMERCIAL-TAXES-LGSTO-20-DGSTO-1,-NO.19/3,-- ND2 -FLOOR,-CUNNINGHAM-ROAD,-- BANGALORE-560052.- - - -e2e-e NC:(2026:KHC:31460( WP(No.(15411(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

2.-THE-JOINT-COMMISSIONER-OF--COMMERCIAL-TAXES-(APPEALS-1)-BMTC-BUILDING-SHANTHI-NAGAR-BANGALORE---560-027.-…RESPONDENTS-(BY-SRI.K.-HEMA-KUMAR.,-AGA)---THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-I)-QUASH-SHOW-CAUSE-NOTICE-ISSUED-BY-THE-RESPONDENT-1-UNDER-SECTION-73(1)-OF-KGST-ACT,-2017-R.W.R-142-KGST-RULES-R.W.R-142-OF-CGST-RULE,-2017-DATED-

30.12.2023,-BEARING-NOTICE-NO.-ZD2901240011865-IS-ENCLOSED-HEREWITH-AND-MARKED-AS-ANNEXURE-A;-II)-QUASH-ORDER-UNDER-SECTION-73-OF-KGST-ACT-2017-AND-R.W.S-6-OF-CGST-ACT,-2017-AND-SECTION-20-OF-IGST-ACT,-2017-PASSED-BY-THE-RESPONDENT-1-DATED-29.02.2024,-THE-ORDER-UNDER-SECTION-73-OF-KGST-ACT-2017-AND-R.W.S-6-OF-CGST-ACT,-2017-AND-SECTION-20-OF-IGST-ACT,-2017-BEARING-ORDER-NO.-ZD290224073730F-PASSED-BY-THE-RESPONDENT-1-IS-ENCLOSED-HEREWITH-AND-MARKED-AS-ANNEXURE-B;-III)-QUASH-APPEAL-ORDER-UNDER-SECTION-107(11)-OF-SGST-ACT,-2017-AND-CGST-ACT,-2017-PASSED-BY-THE-RESPONDENT-2-DATED-31.07.2025,-THE-ORDER-UNDER-SECTION-107(11)-OF-SGST-ACT,-2017-AND-CGST-ACT,-2017-BEARING-ORDER-NO.-ZD290725127585X-PASSED-BY-RESPONDENT-2-IS-ENCLOSED-HEREWITH-AND-MARKED-AS-ANNEXURE-C.-

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

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has suffered an Adjudication Order dated 29.02.2024 [Annexure-B] under Section of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short 'the Act'] read with the provisions of the Act and the relevant Rules. The petitioner has called in question the Adjudication Order in an appeal under Section 107[11] of the Act unsuccessfully with the appellate Authority rejecting the appeal in GST.AP. No.249/2024-25 on 31.07.2025 [Annexure-C]. The appellate Authority has ultimately opined that the petitioner has not furnished the Certificate as contemplated under the relevant Board Circulars to justify the output tax being paid by the petitioner's suppliers as mentioned in Form GSTR-3B.

Sri Subrahmanya Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks this Court's indulgence on the grounds such as that [a] the Show Cause Notice is not signed, [b] before any action is taken against the petitioner, the proceedings must be initiated against the Supplier, and [c] the petitioner can reconcile certain transactions based on the documents now available, but could not reconcile all the transactions because the supplier has not responded to the emails.

Sri K Hemakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents, rightly points out that all the three grounds would essentially involve examination of facts and that the petitioner can avail appellate remedy under Section 108 of the Act with the appellate Tribunal being recently constituted and this Tribunal, as the last fact finding authority, can examine all the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner must be

relegated to the alternate remedy, but with some interim protection. Hence, the following. ORDER [a] The petition stands disposed of calling upon the Authorities to defer initiating further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Adjudication Order, consequent to the dismissal of the appeal for a period of six [6] weeks from today. [b] With this Court relegating the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, the time spent in prosecuting this petition must be excluded, and it is observed accordingly.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

AN/-