M/S Daivik Developers vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 3312 Kant

Karnataka High Court

M/S Daivik Developers vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2026

Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav

                                         -1-
                                                       NC: 2026:KHC:20815
                                                     WP No. 10246 of 2026


             HC-KAR




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                       BEFORE
                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 10246 OF 2026 (T-RES)
            BETWEEN:

            1.    M/S DAIVIK DEVELOPERS
                  (A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
                  2ND FLOOR, 334/28, 14TH CROSS,
                  2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
                  BENGALURU-560 011
                  REPRESENTED BY ITS
                  MANAGING PARTNER
                  SHRI.K VASUDEVA SHETTY
                                                             ... PETITIONER
            (BY SRI. ANIL KUMAR B., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally         THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
signed by
VIJAYA P          FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
Location:         VIDHANA SOUDHA,
HIGH
COURT OF          BENGALURU-560 001
KARNATAKA

            2.    THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
                  IN KARNATAKA,
                  VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA
                  GANDHINAGAR,
                  BENGALURU-560 009

            3.    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
                  COMMERICAL TAXES (AUDIT)-3.9,
                  2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
                                -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:20815
                                        WP No. 10246 of 2026


 HC-KAR



     SHANTINAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560 027

4.   THE BRANCH MANAGER,
     CANARA BANK,
     P B NO.28, KANAKADASA ROAD,
     UDUPI-576 101

5.   THE BRANCH MANAGER,
     BANK OF BARODA,
     BANNANJE BRANCH,
     KALLYANI VITTAL TOWER,
     MAIN ROAD, BANNANJE,
     UDUPI-576 101
                                               ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. JYOTI MARADI, HCGP)

     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTICE FORM GST DRC-13 DATED 05/02/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A
AND FORM GST DRC-13 DATED 24/02/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO
THE WRIT PETITION, ISSUED BY R3 DEMANDING RS. 85,92,118/-
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

Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts

notice for respondents 1 to 3.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that an order of

adjudication came to be passed by respondent No. 3 on

NC: 2026:KHC:20815

HC-KAR

28.01.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner preferred

first appeal and while doing so, petitioner is stated to have

deposited the entirety of the disputed tax amount of

Rs.28,84,680/-. It is further submitted that the first

appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioner on 15.10.2025. Petitioner submits that

thereafter recovery notice has been issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the entirety of the tax liability has been cleared as is

evident from the entries in the Electronic Liability Ledger

at Annexure-E. Attention is drawn to the entries on

13.02.2025 and 28.04.2025. It is submitted that both

CGST and SGST tax demand have been cleared and what

would remain is only interest and penalty. It is further

submitted that this aspect is further clarified by virtue of

the contents in Form GST APL-01.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled

for time till 30.06.2026 to file the appeal before the

NC: 2026:KHC:20815

HC-KAR

Tribunal and in light of petitioner having cleared the

entirety of tax demand, the authorities could not have

taken steps for recovery.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

in terms of the representation at Annexure-H, petitioner

had made it clear that once the filing window for the

impugned order is enabled, he would file an appeal.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader

submits that the aspect of payment is a matter for

confirmation upon instructions.

7. It is to be noticed that insofar as the intention

to file the appeal, in terms of Annexure-H petitioner has

made his intention of filing appeal clear. The entries in the

Electronic Liability Ledger, prima facie indicates that tax

component which is the subject matter of order in the first

appeal has been cleared. If that were to be so, in terms of

Section 112(9) of the CGST Act, there cannot be any steps

for recovery. Recovery would stand stayed.

NC: 2026:KHC:20815

HC-KAR

8. Accordingly, Form GST DRC-13 at Annexures-A

and B are set aside. Needless to state, petitioner is to file

an appeal in terms of his undertaking and in the event of

any discrepancy regarding payment made as regards tax

component, liberty is reserved to the revenue to move for

further orders. In light of the same, any steps for recovery

if initiated stand rescinded.

9. Issuance of notice to respondents 4 and 5 -

Bank is waived in light of disposal of the petition relegating

the petitioner to file an appeal in terms of his undertaking.

10. Accordingly, petition is disposed of.

SD/-

(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

VP