BKR Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
The ruling in brief
BKR Services (P) Ltd. challenged garnishee recovery before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 21878 of 2026, decided 17 July 2026). Form GST DRC-13 garnishee notices under Section 79 read with Rule 145 targeted the private limited company for GST dues of a deceased person's proprietary concern, treating them as one liability pool. Adjudication had also failed to consider post-death liability under Sections 73 and 93. The court quashed DRC-13 notices, related recovery orders, and DRC-07 demand summaries, restoring proceedings for fresh decision on whether the company or its assets were legally liable for the deceased's dues. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Corporate personality and estate liability must be adjudicated separately. This editorial summary is not legal advice.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.79 — Recovery of tax and other dues payable to Government.
- CGST Rules R.145 — Rule 145 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
- CGST S.93 — Liability in case of death of a taxable person; estate responsibility.
- CGST S.73 — Determination of tax not paid or short paid (non-fraud cases).
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the revenue
Jaiwanti v. Union of India
Jaiwanti, as legal representative, challenged show cause and penalty proceedings arising from alleged fraudulent input tax credit and IGST refund claims of a deceased person. The High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 7254 of 2025, 25 September 2026) upheld the department’s action under Section 93 of the CGST Act, which permits post-death determination of tax, interest, and penalty to the extent of the deceased’s estate. Investigation and recovery against legal heirs were jurisdictionally valid; Article 14 and related provisions did not assist the petitioner. Outcome favoured the revenue. This contrasts with cases where notices are issued only in the deceased’s name without proper representation procedure. For estate planning and GST compliance, Section 93 mechanics are central. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-09-25, High Court of Delhi recorded in favour of the revenue in W.P.(C) NO.7254 OF 2025. Central provisions engaged included CGST S.93, CGST S.73, CGST S.74. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the revenue
VRAA and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
VRAA and Co., a partnership firm, challenged garnishee action before the High Court of Madras (WP No. 22458 of 2026, decided 23 June 2026). Firm tax dues had crystallised without successful challenge; a partner's personal bank account was attached through Form GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c)(i). The firm argued that Section 83 provisional attachment limits applied. The court held partners remain jointly and severally liable for firm dues and garnishee recovery under Section 79 against a partner's account was permissible once liability was final. Section 83 governed provisional attachment in pending proceedings, not this recovery mode. No ground for writ interference arose. The petition was dismissed in favour of the Assistant Commissioner. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.
In favour of the revenue
Commissioner of Central Tax v. Sadguru Infratech (P.) Ltd
The Commissioner of Central Tax appealed before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Appeal No. 1076 of 2023, decided 10 June 2026) against a Single Judge order favouring Sadguru Infratech (P) Ltd. A sub-contractor had filed GST returns belatedly; garnishee action under Section 79 sought recovery of interest on delayed tax payment under Sections 39 and 50. The Single Judge had permitted filing or amendments of returns post 1 July 2017 without insisting on interest, penalty, or limitation and had restrained recovery. The Division Bench held that interest liability arises by statutory mandate under Section 9 read with Section 50 and cannot be waived or reduced in the absence of a specific enabling provision; Section 128 did not apply. The appeal was allowed in favour of the revenue.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes
GR Tech Services (P.) Ltd. obtained relief from the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 15670 of 2026, 3 June 2026) where tax was initially paid as IGST on a transaction later treated as intra-State, requiring CGST and KGST. The Assistant Commissioner demanded additional tax, interest, and penalty under Sections 73, 77, and 79 without properly adjusting or refunding the IGST already paid, contrary to refund rules (Rules 92 and 145). The impugned demand orders were quashed and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in compliance with the statutory scheme for reclassification and refund. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Key takeaway: recharacterisation of supply must follow adjustment/refund mechanics, not parallel demand alone. Not legal advice. Disposed on 2026-06-03, High Court of Karnataka recorded in favour of the assessee; matter remanded in WRIT PETITION NO. 15670 OF 2026 (T-RES). Central provisions engaged included CGST S.77, CGST S.73, CGST S.79. Chartered accountants should map period-wise limitation, personal hearing, and appeal under Section 107 when advising on replies, deposits, or writ versus appeal strategy. This editorial summary is for professional research and is not legal advice.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Cart Infralog Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner
Cart Infralog Ltd. challenged input tax credit recovery before the Calcutta High Court in WPA No. 16556 of 2025, decided 27 August 2026. The assessee demonstrated valid tax invoices, physical receipt of goods, and payment to suppliers for the transactions in dispute. Recovery was nevertheless pursued because suppliers failed to deposit GST and corresponding entries did not appear in GSTR-2A. Justice Smita Das De held that, absent collusion or fraud by the recipient, coercive recovery from the purchaser was without jurisdiction under sections 16, 73, 74, and 79 of the CGST Act; the department should first proceed against defaulting suppliers under section 79. The impugned recovery was quashed and the matter remanded for lawful action. Outcome favoured the assessee. This editorial summary is for chartered accountants and is not legal advice.