M/S. Sri Lakshmi Ranganatha Enterprises v. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:9536 WP(No.(39658(of(2025 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(17 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(39658(OF(2025((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., M/S.,SRI,LAKSHMI,RANGANATHA,ENTERPRISES, 012,,MANDUR,POST,, KATIHALLI,VILLAGE.,, ANAGODU,HOBLI,,, DAVANGERE,DISTRICT,-,577,556,,, KARNATAKA., REPRESENTED,BY,PROPRIETOR,, Y,R,RANGAPPA,,, S/O,RAMAPPA, OCCUPATION:,BUSINESSMEN,,, AGED,ABOUT,49,YEARS,,, R/O,012,,MANDUR,POST,,, Digitally KATIHALLI,VILLAGE,,, signedtiby VIJAYA0P ANAGODU,HOBLI,,, Location: DAVANGERE,DISTRICT-577,556,HIGH0COURT OF …,PETITIONER,KARNATAKA (BY,SRI.,RENUKAPRASAD,C,M.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,OF,, COMMERCIAL,TAXES,,(AUDIT),-,1.,, VANIJYA,TERIGE,BHAVANA,,, DEVARAJ,URS,LAYOUT,,, DAVANGERE,-,577,005., e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:9536 WP(No.(39658(of(2025

2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,OF,, COMMERCIAL,TAXES,, LGSTO-460,,, VANIJYA,TERIGE,BHAVANA,,, DEVARAJ,URS,LAYOUT,,, DAVANGERE-577,005,,

3., THE,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,OF,, COMMERCIAL,TAXES,,(AUDIT),,, NDSNR,BUILDING,,2 ,FLOOR,,, RTO,OFFICE,ROAD,,, CHITRADURGA-577, …,RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,HEMAKUMAR,,AGA), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, (I), QUASH, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDERS, PASSED, BY, THE, RESPONDENTS, UNDER, KGST,AND,CGST,ACT,,2017:,ORDERS,OF,RESPONDENT,NO.,1, BEARING, NO., ACCT(AUDIT-1)/DVG/T., /2023-24, DATED,

29.11.2023, AS, PER, ANNEXURE-'C, 1',, ORDER, BEARING, NO., ACCT(AUDIT-1)/DVG/T., /2023-24, DATED, 29.02.2024, AS, PER, ANNEXURE,-,C,2,,ORDER,BEARING,NO.,DCCT(AUDIT),CTA/GST, ADJ.S-73(1)/2024-25,DATED,14.08.2024,AS,PER,ANNEXURE,-, C, 3,, ORDER, BEARING, NO., ACCT(AUDIT-1)/DVG/T., /2024-25, DATED,18.01.2025,AS,PER,ANNEXURE,-,C,4,,ORDER,BEARING, NO., ACCT(AUDIT-1)/DVG/T., /2025-26, DATED, 21.07.2025, AS, PER, ANNEXURE, -, C, 5, AND, ORDERS, OF, RESPONDENT, NO., 2 BEARING,REFERENCE,NO:/ASTM-13/22-23,DATED,23.09.2022, AS, PER, ANNEXURE-D, 1,, ORDER, BEARING, REFERENCE, NO:, /ASTM-13/22-23,DATED,23.09.2022,AS,PER,ANNEXURE,-,D,2, AND, ORDER, BEARING, REFERENCE, NO:2155/ASTM-13/23-24, DATED,18.03.2024,AS,PER,ANNEXURE,-,D,3,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 Petitioner has called in question the validity of the orders of adjudication at Annexure-C series. Petitioner has also called in question the correctness of the orders at Annexure-D series relating to recovery which are the protective assessment orders.

¶2At the outset, Sri. Hemakumar, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that proceedings at Annexure-D series have been dropped. In light of the same, question of adjudication in the present proceedings relating to orders at Annexure-D series does not survive for consideration.

¶3Insofar as the orders of adjudication at Annexure-C series, it is the case of the petitioner that they render composite supply of works contract to Government departments and it is submitted that in the event the composite supply involves predominantly earthwork which constitute 75% of the value of the works contract, then

the slab of tax would be 5%. It is submitted that such aspect has not been taken note of by the authorities while passing the orders of adjudication at Annexure-C series.

¶4Learned AGA submits that petitioner has been negligent in not approaching the Authority by way of reply to the show cause notice in time.

¶5It is submitted by the petitioner that they did not make out any reply to the show cause notice due to certain bonafide reasons.

¶6The orders date back to the year 2023. Taking note of the contention of the petitioner by placing reliance on the notification of 13.10.2017 at Annexure B, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back for fresh consideration. Petitioner would then be entitled to place their stand on merits and make out a case as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the lower rate of tax in terms of composite supply as noticed in the notification of

13.10.2017. In light of such contention raised on merits

which if accepted would result in lowering the tax slab from 12% to 5%, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, the following: ORDER

i) Orders at Annexures-C1 to C5 are set aside.

ii) The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

iii) The authorities to revoke instructions regarding freezing of the bank account within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

iv) Petitioner to pay 10% of the tax demand for each of the assessment year.

v) The adjudication would be taken up only after the payment of 10% of the tax amount.

vi) Petitioner to appear before the concerned respondent without further notice on

11.03.2025.

vii) Needless to state, if the petitioner does not appear on the said date, petitioner would forfeit the indulgence granted by this Court. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP