M/S Hardcore Securitys v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:11679 WP(No.(3739(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(25 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(3739(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., M/S,HARDCORE,SECURITYS, RDNO.301,,3 ,FLOOR,,, THNO.20,,5 ,CROSS,,, OUTER,RING,ROAD,,PAPAREDDY,PALYA,, BENGALURU-560,072, REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,PROPRIETOR,, SOLE,PROPRIETORSHIP,CONCERNED,, SRI,YELAGALAVADI,VENKATESH, CHANDRAMOULESHA,, S/O.,VENKATESH,,, THR/O.,NO.,406,,16 ,CROSS,,, NEAR,AMMA,ASHRAMA,ARCH,,,Digitally signedtiby NAGADEANAHALLLY,,, VIJAYA0P Location: ULLALU,UPANAGARA,,, HIGH0COURT OF BENGALURU,-,560,056, KARNATAKA …,PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,GOWRISHANKAR,PRASAD,H,R.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,COMMISSIONER,OF,COMMERCIAL,TAXES,, VANIJYA,TERIGE,KARYALAYA,,, GANDHINAGAR,,, BENGALURU,-,560,009, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:11679 WP(No.(3739(of(2026

2., THE,COMMERCIAL,TAX,OFFICER, AUDIT-2.4,DGSTO-02,,, ST1 ,FLOOR,,PIONEER,PLAZA,,, KENCHENAHALLI,MAIN,ROAD,, OPP.,GOPALAN,ARCH,MALL,,, OFF,MYSURU,ROAD,,, BENGALURU-560,098.,

3., THE,JOINT,COMMISSIONER,OF,COMMERCIAL,TAXES, (APPEALS)-02,,, ABOVE,BMTC,BUS,STAND,,, SHANTINAGARA,,, BENGALURU, …,RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,HEMAKUMAR,,AGA), ***, , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, (A), QUASHING, THE,IMPUGNED,ADJUDICATION,ORDER,BEARING,NO.,50/2023-24,, CONSEQUENTIAL, COMPUTER, GENERATED, ORDER, UNDER, SEC., 73, AND, SUMMARY, ORDER, IN, FORM, GST, DRC-07,, BEARING,REFERENCE,NO.,ZD2903240846922,ALL,DATED,30-03-2024, (ANNEXURES-B,, C, AND, D), PASSED, BY, THE, NDCOMMERCIAL,TAX,OFFICER,AUDIT-2.4,,BENGALURU,,THE,2 RESPONDENT,FOR,THE,FINANCIAL,YEAR,2018-19,AND,ETC., , THIS, PETITION, COMING,ON, FOR, FRESH,MATTERS,LIST, 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 of adjudication at Annexure-B and the summary orders at Annexures-C and D.

¶2It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, due to incomplete presentation of the petitioner's case before the authority, the authority has concluded the proceedings raising the demand. It is submitted that if the petitioner is given an opportunity to appear before the Authority, the petitioner would make out their case that the services which have been adjudicated as being taxable, are in fact exempt.

¶3Reliance is placed on the notification No.12/2017 - Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 and in specific to Entry-66, "Heading 9992". It is further submitted that the Authority has recovered taxes amounting to Rs.38,05,355/- and there has been further

recovery as well. Petitioner further submits that the mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B would be reconciled, if an opportunity is provided

¶4Sri. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the amount of recovery is a matter of record and to be verified.

¶5Taking note of the assertions of the petitioner regarding exemption claimed by relying on notification dated 28.06.2017 and noticing that the Authority has passed an order which according to the petitioner would not have been passed if the petitioner had placed materials such as invoices at the appropriate point of time, and taking note that there has been substantial recovery of tax, it would be appropriate to enable the petitioner to take a stand on merits as noticed from the assertions referred to above.

¶6Accordingly, the order of adjudication at Annexure-B and the summary orders at Annexures-C and

D are set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration before respondent No. 2.

¶7Petitioner to appear before respondent No. 2 without fresh notice on 24.03.2026.

¶8Needless to state, if the petitioner were to be absent or not take the benefit of participation in the proceedings on the date fixed, the indulgence granted by the Court would stand revoked. The amount of tax recovered would be subject to adjudication which is directed to be redone. All contentions are kept open.

¶9Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP