Use of Word 'May' in GST Amnesty Notification Makes Timeline Directory, Not Mandatory: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

The Karnataka High Court ruled that where the word “may” is used in a notification, the timescale so stipulated is directory and not obligatory and tax officials cannot construe such timelines severely to deny the benefit of an amnesty plan to an eligible assessee.

The ruling was given by the Single Judge Bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad while hearing the writ suit filed by R.R. Infratech contesting the adjudication order, a recovery notice and an endorsement dated April 2, 2026, for the tax period 2018-2019.

The grievance of thepetitioner was that the department had not given it the benefit of the GST Amnesty Scheme 2025. The scheme, initially notified on October 8, 2024, and updated on February 11, 2025, had offered waiver of interest and penalty to taxpayers who paid their principal tax demand before March 31, 2025, and made a declaration supplying the requisite facts before June 30, 2025.

The admitted position was that the petitioner had paid the entire principal tax demand before the cut-off date. The petitioner, however, did not upload the requisite declaration by June 30. The authorities, therefore, issued an endorsement rejecting the waiver of interest and penalty merely on the pretext of missing the disclosure deadline while the petitioner was repeatedly warned through its registered email.

Advocate Sri Pradyumna G.H., appearing for the petitioner contended that if the petitioner is allowed to file the declaration belatedly, the core grievance can be remedied. He relied upon the recent ruling made by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court in W.P. No. 102773/2026 (T-RES) wherein it was clearly ruled that the notification uses the phrase "may", and the timelines are discretionary and not mandatory.

On the other hand, the Additional Government Advocate for the department, Sri K. Hema Kumar, submitted that the petitioner was aware of the scheme and the benefits accruing thereunder. He submitted that the petitioner had not availed herself of the chance despite that she was repeatedly intimated and, thus, could not attempt to file a declaration beyond the statutory time limit today.

“The High Court agreed with the submissions of the petitioner that a Coordinate Bench had already held that the department was wrong in law in interpreting the timelines for uploading the declaration strictly.“In the considered view of this Court, the respondent will have to consider the petitioner’s request in the light of this conclusion and then opine as to why, if the timelines are directory, the petitioner must not be given the benefit of filing a declaration even now when the petitioner asserts that the demand had crystallised before the date notified,” the Court observed.

The Court approved the petition in part and quashed the endorsement of the department dated 2nd April, 2026. The petitioner is at liberty to file certified copies of the ruling of the High Court along with the order of the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No. 102773/2026 within four weeks.

The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s request to file a declaration now and seek waiver of interest and penalty in terms of the decision of the Coordinate Bench and clarified that the department cannot be precipitate in demanding interest or penalty while the petitioner’s request is pending.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates