[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Mangalore Internet City Pvt Ltd vs The Superintendent Of Central Tax on 8 April, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19326
WP No. 6388 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
WRIT PETITION NO. 6388 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S MANGALORE INTERNET CITY PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT
10-76/1 MANGAKLORE HILLS
PREETHINAGAR SHAKTHINAGAR POST
MANGALORE -575 016
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI PRADEEP UPENDRA NAYAK
S/O SRI UPENDRA T NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
... PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
VIJAYA P (BY SRI. VANI H., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX
YEYYADI RANGE SOUTH DIVISION
ROOM NO. 403, 4TH FLOOR C R BUILDING
ATTAVARA
MANGALORE -570 001
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19326
WP No. 6388 of 2026
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEARING NO.
03/2023-24 DATED 11.4.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
UNDER SECTION 74 FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE E
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP 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-in-original passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act
for the financial year 2018-19 at Annexure-G dated
30.12.2025.
2. The brief facts that are of relevance for disposal
of the petition are that the petitioner is stated to have
obtained an approval of plan on 24.08.2011 for
development of a residential layout. It is further submitted
that construction of a Villa in Plot No. 126 was completed
NC: 2026:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
on 08.07.2018 and the petitioner had applied for issuance
of completion certificate with a competent authority. It is
further submitted that the completion certificate was
granted on 06.02.2019. In the interregnum, on
23.07.2018 petitioner had entered into an agreement to
sell the villa and collected part advance which constituted
only part of the sale consideration.
3. It is submitted that after issuance of completion
certificate on 06.02.2019, the petitioner executed the sale
deed transferring title of the immovable property in favour
of the purchaser on 29.03.2019.
4. It is stated that the respondent has embarked
upon adjudication on the ground that the petitioner is
required to be subjected to liability in terms of Section
7(2) of the CGST Act read with Entry-5 of Schedule-II. It
is the contention of the petitioner that in response to the
show cause notice, detailed reply at Annexure-F had been
submitted.
NC: 2026:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the transfer of property was effected by way of registered
sale deed only after the completion certificate and that the
agreement of sale cannot be taken to be a conclusive date
as transferring title. It is further submitted that though the
completion certificate was issued on 06.02.2019, that by
itself would not be conclusive in terms of the explanation
to Entry-5 of Schedule-II of CGST Act. It is submitted that
such aspect has not been taken note of appropriately by
the authority and a cryptic reasoning is assigned at para
13 which requires reconsideration. It is submitted that the
authority may be directed to reconsider the matter after
taking note of the detailed reply and a fresh opportunity
may be afforded to place all relevant legal authorities
before the authority.
6. Sri. Aravind Chavan, learned counsel submits
that the adjudication is complete and the question raised
by the petitioner is a matter to be canvassed in appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
7. Perused the order. The discussion and findings
at para 13 of the impugned order insofar as the contention
of the petitioner has not been dealt with appropriately.
The contentions raised by the petitioner as made out in
the reply to the show cause notice as well as the scope of
interpretation of explanation to Entry-5 requires
reconsideration.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-G
is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the authority
for reconsideration. All contentions on merits are kept
open. Needless to state, the Authority to deal in detail with
the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, as
well as the legal contentions as made out in the petition
that the petitioner states would be canvassed once again
before the Authority.
9. Petitioner to appear before respondent without
further notice on 11.05.2026.
NC: 2026:KHC:19326
HC-KAR
10. In light of the above, writ petition is disposed
of.
Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VP
