BENGALURU – 560 071 v. SRI. POOJAPPA, CGC FOR R7)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order Annexure-A dated 20.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law…
Judgment
(BY SRI. RAKSHITH B. BHARADWAJ, FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST COMMISSIONERATE, 4TH FLOOR, TTMC/BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR BENGALURU – 560 071 …PETITIONER
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, EAST DIVISION-1, BENGALURU 6TH FLOOR, TTMC/BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR BENGALURU – 560 071. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, EAST DIVISION-1, BENGALURU 6TH FLOOR, TTMC/BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR BENGALURU – 560 071. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47369 WP No. 12644 of 2025 HC-KAR
THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST COMMISSIONERATE BENGALURU EAST 4TH FLOOR, TTMC/BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR BENGALURU – 560 071. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX COUNCIL REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE CHAIRPERSON 5TH FLOOR, TOWER II, JEEVAN BHARTI BUILDING JANPATH ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI – 110 001. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALAGI, FOR R-1 TO R6; SRI. POOJAPPA, CGC FOR R7) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.03.2024 BEARING OIO NO. 21/2024 JC-1 AND DIN NO. 202403570000003303C1 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017, FOR THE TAX PERIODS APRIL 2018 TO MARCH 2019 (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.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47369 WP No.
12644 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
(i) Quashing impugned order dated 20.03.2024 bearing OiO No.21/2024 JC-1 No.202403570000003303C1 passed by and DIN the 1st Respondent under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax periods April 2018 to March 2019 (Annexure ‘A’); (ii) Declaring that since the charges collected by the Petitioner from its customers and lessees supply of electricity and water by third-party suppliers are at actuals when compared with the consolidated amounts charged on it by the said third-party suppliers, it is deemed to be acting in the capacity of a pure agent in terms of Para 3.3 of the Circular No.206/08/2023-GST dated 31.10.2023 (Annexure ‘B’) issued by the 7th Respondent through the 5th Respondent, and that the said supplies by third-party suppliers, along with the Petitioner’s supply of renting of immovable property, thus do not constitute a composite supply in terms of Section 8 of the GST Acts effected by the Petitioner and, hence, the said amounts collected by it are not liable to tax under the provisions of the CGST and KGST Acts, 2017; and (iii) Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and equity.
- 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47369 WP No. 12644 of 2025 HC-KAR
Heard learned counsel for both parties and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention the Circular No.206/08/2023-GST dated 31.10.2023 at Annexure-B issued by the respondents in order to point out that Clause No.3.2 and 3.3 and of the said Circular having not been considered in their proper perspective by respondent No.1, while passing the impugned order and as such, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that while dealing with the said contention, will indicate that the petitioner had put forth several contentions as regards the said Circular and applicability of Clause 3.3 to the petitioner herein. The said contention has not been considered by respondent No.1 in its proper perspective, has also not considered the various other - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47369 WP No. 12644 of 2025 HC-KAR contentions urged by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, the matter be remitted back to the concerned respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
Operative part
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order Annexure-A dated 20.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law bearing in mind Clause-3.3 of the said Circular dated
31.10.2023 and in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit pleadings, documents etc., before respondent No.1, who shall consider the same and provide sufficient opportunity and proceed further, in accordance with law. BMC: List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0 Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013; Constitution of India — art. 226; Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s. 73.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.