SHRI. FAKEERAPPA DURGAPPA MADAR vs THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16778
WP No. 102218 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020042592026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO.102218 OF 2026 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. FAKEERAPPA DURGAPPA MADAR,
AGE. 52 YEARS, PROP.
M/S SWASTIK CONSULTANCY SERVICES,
01, AROODH JYOTHI COMLEX,
ND
2 FLOOR, SAI NAGAR ROAD, UNAKAL,
HUBBALLI-580031.
GSTN: 29AVTPM0903A1ZP
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.G. SOLARGOPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS),
NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES,
LGSTO-330, HUBBALLI-580025.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR QUASHING THE
ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.APL-GST-274 /2025-26 DATED 01-12-2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-1, VIDE ANNEXURE-“A” AND QUASH
THE ADJUDICATION ORDER BEARING NO.ACCT/LGSTO-
330/ORDER/2023-24/B-6124 AND REFERENCE
NO.ZD291223043330U DATED: 16-12-2023 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT-2 AND VIDE ANNEXURE-“B”. II. AND ALSO PASS SUCH
OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO
MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.












Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16778
WP No. 102218 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020042592026


THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER
Heard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Though this Writ Petition is listed under the
caption, fresh matters, with the consent of both the
parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. This Writ Petition is filed with the following
reliefs:
“1. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
or quashing the Order-in-Appeal No.APL-GST-274 /2025-
26 dated 01-12-2025 passed by the Respondent-1, vide
Annexure-“A” and
Quash the Adjudication Order bearing no.ACCT/LGSTO-
330/ORDER/2023-24/B-6124 and Reference
No.ZD291223043330U dated: 16-12-2023 passed by the
Respondent-2 and vide Annexure-“B ”.

ii. And also pass such other and further relief as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice.”


4. The lis involved in this petition is no more res
integra with the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16778
WP No. 102218 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020042592026


Court in W.P.Nos.100867 C/w W.P.No.100887 of 2026
disposed on 15.07.2026.

5. The Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of
the writ petitions with the following observation. The
relevant paragraph Nos.3 to end read as under:
3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned AGA that the question that
arises for consideration in the present writ petitions is
with regard to the adjustment of Goods and Service Tax
[GST]
consequent to coming into force of the Central
Goods and Service Taxes Act, 2017 [CGST Act] . It is
further submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Chandrashekharaiah Vs. State of
1
Karnataka has disposed of the writ petitions by issuing
various guidelines. The operative portion of the said order
is as under:

“ ORDER
(i) Petitions are hereby disposed of.

(ii) The Respondents-State and other Govt
agencies/Respondents who have entered into
works contract with the Petitioners are issued the
following directions/guidelines:-

(a) Calculate the works executed pre-GST
(prior to 1-7- 2017) under KVAT regime and
payments received by the Petitioners.

(b) The payments received by the Petitioners
pre-GST for such of the works executed before 1-7-
2017 are to be assessed under KVAT tax regime -
either under COT or VAT scheme as applicable.


- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16778
WP No. 102218 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020042592026


(c) Calculate the balance works to be
completed or completed after 1-7-2017, in the
original contract.

(d) Derive the rate of materials, KVAT items
required or used to complete the balance works.

(e) Deduct the "KVAT" amount from those
materials and the service tax, if applicable.

(f) Add the applicable "GST" on those items.

(g) Input Credit on the materials is to be
arrived at and be set off as against the output GST,
for those assessed under regular VAT.

(h) Further, the "tax difference" should be
calculated on such balance works executed or to be
executed after 1- 7-2017 separately.

(i) Based on the result obtained on
calculation of the tax difference on the contract
value, concerned department/authority has to
decide whether agreement needs to be changed or
not.

(j) A supplementary agreement may be
signed with the Petitioners for the revised GST-
inclusive work value for the Balance Work
completed or to be completed as determined above
and in case the revised GST-inclusive work value
for the Balance Work, completed or to be
completed after 1-7-2017, is more than the original
agreement work value, the Petitioners are to be
paid/reimbursed, as the case may be, the
differential tax amount by the concerned employer;
so also, in case
payments for works completed pre-GST are made
postGST, the concerned employer has to pay or
reimburse, as the case may be, the differential tax
amount, to the Petitioners.

(iii) Petitioners are directed to submit
comprehensive representations to the respective

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16778
WP No. 102218 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020042592026


employers/Respondents within a period of 4 weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
irrespective of whether they have completed the
works pre-GST or post-GST or payments were
received or yet to be received post-GST.

(iv) If such representations are submitted, the
respective employers/Respondents are directed to
consider and dispose of the same in the light of the
aforesaid directions/guidelines as expeditiously as
possible and at any rate within a period of 8 weeks
from the date of submission of the representations.

(v) In view of the interim orders passed by this
Court in the present petitions, such of the
petitioners who had not filed their GST returns
during the period after 1-7- 2017 are permitted to
file their returns/amended returns, pursuant to the
calculation of the differential tax as per procedure
above under GST regime, without insisting on
interest or penalty or limitation.

(vi) The GST authorities are also directed not to
take precipitative action against the Petitioners for
a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.

(vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioners
to challenge any order/decision passed/taken by
the respondents or the authorities, subsequent to
this order and also take recourse to such remedies
as available in law.”

4. It is further jointly submitted that the judgment
of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in the case of
1
Chandrasekharaiah was the subject matter of
challenge before the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Office of Principal Commissioner GST and
Central Excise and others Vs R Chandrashekhar
2
S/o. Ramaiah . The Division Bench has partly allowed
the said appeals. The operative portion of the order of the
Division Bench is as under:


- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16778
WP No. 102218 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020042592026


“8. The dispute as to whether the writ
petitioners would be entitled to reimbursement of
the incremental tax paid or payable by them on
account of the levy of GST is strictly a matter
between the writ petitioners and the Employers
with whom they had entered into the contracts.
The contracts between the writ petitioners and the
Employers would not alter the statutory scheme for
the levy of GST. Thus, the liability of the writ
petitioners to pay Goods and Services Tax (whether
under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017, the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
or the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017) is required to be determined strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the relevant
statute. The question of the levy of GST,
assessment, recovery, and enforcement is a matter
of statutory prescription.

9. In view of the above, no directions could
be issued permitting the filing of any revised
returns contrary to the provisions of the statute.
The plenary directions to waive the penalty,
interest under the GST Acts or the limitation for
filing returns/revised returns are also
unsustainable.

10. The controversy as to the incremental
tax burden arising on account of the change in the
tax regime is, in essence, one between the writ
petitioners and the Employers. In the context of
such a dispute, no directions could be issued to the
tax authorities regarding the levy, assessment, and
collection of tax, penalty, or interest.

11. In the aforesaid view, the direction
issued to the respondents to reimburse the
differential tax is required to be construed as a
direction only to the concerned Employers and not
to the tax authorities.

12. Accordingly, the impugned order, to the
extent it issues directions to the tax authorities, is

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16778
WP No. 102218 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020042592026


set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.”

5. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench,
as referred above, the operative direction Nos.(v) and (vi)
1
as ordered in case of Chandrashekharaiah have been
set aside.

6. In view of the aforementioned, the present writ
petitions are allowed in terms of the operative direction
Nos.(i), (ii)(a) to (ii)(f), (iii), (iv) and (vii) as held in the
1
case of Chandrashekharaiah as noted above.

7. Since the petitioner has also impugned the
assessment orders in the present writ petitions, the
petitioner is at liberty to assail the same in appropriate
proceedings. The concerned authorities shall not take into
account time period spent by the petitioner in prosecuting
the present petitions.

8. In view of disposal of the writ petitions, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of.”


6. Since the lis involved in this petition is identical,
this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the
observations stated supra.

Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF)
JUDGE
SRA
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8