M/S Droplet Offshore Services Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:46810( WP(No.(23840(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010527872026(e ( e ( A e INATHEAHIGHACOURTAOFAKARNATAKAAATABENGALURUA e THe DATEDATHISATHEA29 ADAYAOFAAUGUST,A2026A e BEFOREA e THEAHON'BLEAMR.AJUSTICEABAMASHYAMAPRASADA e WRITAPETITIONANO.A23840AOFA2026A(T-RES)Ae e A BETWEEN:AAe A e - M/S-DROPLET-OFFSHORE-- e SERVICES-PRIVATE-LIMITED- (REPRESENTED-BY-KESAVA--e SAI-RAJENDRA-KOTA,- e SENIOR-ACCOUNTING-MANAGER)- e NO.55,-C-1,-BASEMENT-FLOOR-- S.V.-COMPLEX,-KR-ROAD-e BASAVANGUDI,-BENGALURU---560-004-e UNDER-REGISTRED-COMPANIES-ACT-2013.- e - …PETITIONER-Digitally signed by (BY-SRI.-L-S-KARTHIKEYAN.,-ADVOCATE)- eVANAMALA N AND:A Location: A HIGH - ASSISTANT-COMMISSIONER-OF-CENTRAL-TAX-COURT OF SOUTH-DIVISION--4,-BANGALORE-SOUTH-KARNATAKA COMMISSIONERATE-C-WING,-- 7TH-FLOOR,-KENDRIYA-SADAN-KORAMANGALA,-- - - - e e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:46810( WP(No.(23840(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010527872026( ( ( BENGALURU---560-034- - …RESPONDENT- (BY-SRI.ARAVIND-V-CHAVAN.,-ADVOCATE)- - - THIS-WP-IS-FILED-UNDER-ARTICLES-226-AND-227-OF-THE-CONSTITUTION-OF-INDIA-PRAYING-TO-I)- QUASHING-THE-ANNEXURE-A-RECOVERY-NOTICE-IN-FORM-DRC-13-NO.GEXCOM/TAR/D/ST/3426/2025-CGST-DIV-SD-4-COMMTE-DATED-23.03.2026-ISSUED-BY-THE-RESPONDENT-TO-HDFC-BANK-LIMITED;-------------- II)- DIRECTION- - ORDER-TO-THE-RESPONDENT-TO-PROVIDE-A- COPY-OF-THE-ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL-NO.397/2023-SD-4-DATED-04.04.2024SAID-TO-HAVE-BEEN-PASSED-BY-THE-RESPONDENT;-III)-ALLOW-THE-PETITIONER-TO-FILE-AN-APPEAL-UNDER-SECTION-85-OF-THE-FA,-1994-WITHIN-THE-TIME-LIMIT-PROVIDED-IN-SUB-SECTION-3A-THEREIN-FROM-THE-DATE-OF-RECEIPT-OF-THE-ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL-FROM-THE-RESPONDENT;-IV)-ISSUE-APPROPRIATE-DIRECTIONS-TO-THE-RESPONDENT-NOT-TO-INITIATE-ANY-RECOVERY-ACTION-TILL-THE-DUE-DATE-FOR-FILING-THE-APPEAL-AS-ABOVE.- -- - THIS-PETITION,-COMING-ON-FOR-ORDERS,-THIS-DAY,-ORDER-WAS-MADE-THEREIN-AS-UNDER:- - CORAM:- HON'BLE-MR.-JUSTICE-B-M-SHYAM-PRASAD- - e

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's grievance is with the issuance of a Recovery Notice in Form DRC-13 dated

23.03.2026 [Annexure-A] without furnishing a copy of the Adjudication Order dated 27.03.2024, and in fact, Sri L.S. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the previous occasion, has submitted that the petitioner's grievance would be redressed if the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the Adjudication Order withdrawing the Recovery Notice so that the petitioner can avail the appellate remedy against such order.

¶2In elaboration, Sri L.S. Karthikeyan submits that the petitioner had updated the change in the registered address in the year 2023 itself, that the Adjudication Order is sent to the old address and that this has resulted in denial of the appellate remedy resulting in a Recovery Notice. Sri Aravind V Chavan, the learned counsel for the respondent, who

was extended with opportunity, submits that the Adjudication Order dated 27.03.2024 has now been uploaded and a copy is also furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, the learned Standing Counsel cannot dispute the two vital aspects viz., that the petitioner has uploaded the change in its address and that the Adjudication Order is sent to the petitioner's old address.

¶3This Court must opine that the petitioner, because of certain circumstances as of the date of the notice, may have come to know about the Show Cause Notice and participated in the proceedings, but that cannot be held against the petitioner to infer knowledge of the Adjudication Order as of its date. Admittedly, the Adjudication order is sent to the address from which it has moved. There could be intervening circumstances, and aplenty at that, which may inure to the petitioner's benefit justifying

its case that it was not aware of the order until service of notice of the impugned garnishee notice.

¶4The period of limitation for the petitioner's appellate remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act,19941 against the Adjudication Order, will have to be reckoned from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner has now received a copy of the order, and the limitation for challenging the order

1 Section 85. Appeals to the Collector of Central Excise Appeals).

(1) Any person aggrieved by any assessment order passed by the Central Excise Officer under section 71, section 72 or section 73, or denying his liability to be assessed under this Chapter, or by an order levying interest or penalty under this Chapter, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

(2) Every appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner

(3) An appeal shall be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of the Central Excise Officer, relating to service tax, interest or penalty under this Chapter Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months. The underlining is by this Court.

must commence from the date of the receipt of the Adjudication order. The Garnishee Notice issued during the period of limitation cannot be sustained. The petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appellate remedy and to seek interim order with the limitation being computed from today. Hence, the following ORDER The petition stands allowed quashing the Recovery Notice dated 23.03.2026 in Form DRC-13 with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy against the Adjudication Order dated 27.03.2024 and to assert that the limitation starts from today.

Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE nv