Court :
Karnataka High Court
Brief :
The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Hiveloop Technology Private Limited vs Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence [Writ Petition No. 21130 of 2022 (T-RES), order dated March 09, 2026] held that an e-commerce operator who does not collect consideration for supplies made through its platform is not liable to collect Tax Collection at Source (TCS) under Section 52, and consequently, invocation of Section 74 against such operator is without jurisdiction.
Citation :
Writ Petition No. 21130 of 2022 (T-RES), order dated March 09, 2026]
The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Hiveloop Technology Private Limited vs Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence [Writ Petition No. 21130 of 2022 (T-RES), order dated March 09, 2026] held that an e-commerce operator who does not collect consideration for supplies made through its platform is not liable to collect Tax Collection at Source (TCS) under Section 52, and consequently, invocation of Section 74 against such operator is without jurisdiction.
Facts:
M/s. Hiveloop Technology Private Limited ("the Petitioner") operates an e-commerce portal 'udaan', facilitating B2B transactions between independent buyers and sellers. The Petitioner merely provided access to the platform and did not collect payment/ consideration for supplies made through it.
Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence & Ors. ("the Respondent") issued a show cause notice (SCN) dated September 19, 2022 under Section 74 alleging violation of Sections 52 and 17(2) of the CGST/KGST Act and proposing tax demand.
The Petitioner contends that Section 52 is inapplicable since the Petitioner does not collect consideration and that transactions are not supplies of the Petitioner, hence Section 74 cannot be invoked. Further, they argued that no provision exists in GST law to treat the Petitioner as an 'assessee in default' and that Section 17(2) is wrongly invoked as there are no exempt supplies or 'free supplies'. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner, being an e-commerce operator, was liable to collect TCS on supplies made through its platform and had wrongly availed ITC without proper restriction under Section 17(2).
Aggrieved by the impugned SCN issued under Section 74, the Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of SCN.
Issue:
Whether an e-commerce operator who does not collect consideration for supplies made through its platform can be held liable under Section 52 and subjected to proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act?
Held:
The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 21130 of 2022 (T-RES) held as under:
Our Comments:
The Court has placed reliance on Circular No. 194/06/2023-GST dated July 17, 2023, clarifying that TCS liability under Section 52 arises only when the e-commerce operator collects consideration. The judgment strictly interprets Section 52 in line with statutory language and CBIC clarification, reinforcing that collection of consideration is a sine qua non. Further the Court in its earlier decision in M/s. NCN Pearson Inc. vs Union of India & Ors. [W.P. No. 7635/2024, order dated July 16, 2025] , holds that absence of jurisdictional facts such as wilful suppression invalidates invocation of Section 74.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 52(1) of the CGST Act, 2017
"52. Collection of tax at source.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, every electronic commerce operator (hereafter in this section referred to as the "operator"), not being an agent, shall collect an amount calculated at such rate not exceeding one per cent., as may be notified by the Government on the recommendations of the Council, of the net value of taxable supplies made through it by other suppliers where the consideration with respect to such supplies is to be collected by the operator.
Explanation .-For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "net value of taxable supplies" shall mean the aggregate value of taxable supplies of goods or services or both, other than services notified under sub-section (5) of section 9, made during any month by all registered persons through the operator reduced by the aggregate value of taxable supplies returned to the suppliers during the said month."
Section 17(2) of the CGST Act, 2017
"17. Apportionment of credit and blocked credits.-
(1) Where the goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for the purpose of any business and partly for other purposes, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as is attributable to the purposes of his business.
(2) Where the goods or services or both are used by the registered person partly for effecting taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies under this Act or under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act and partly for effecting exempt supplies under the said Acts, the amount of credit shall be restricted to so much of the input tax as is attributable to the said taxable supplies including zero-rated supplies."
Circular No. 194/06/2023-GST dated July 17, 2023
" Subject: Clarification on TCS liability under Sec 52 of the CGST Act, 2017 in case of multiple E-commerce Operators in one transaction.
Reference has been received seeking clarification regarding TCS liability under section 52 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "CGST Act"), in case of multiple E-commerce Operators (ECOs) in one transaction, in the context of Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC).
2.1 In the current platform-centric model of e-commerce, the buyer interface and seller interface are operated by the same ECO. This ECO collects the consideration from the buyer, deducts the TCS under Sec 52 of the CGST Act, credits the deducted TCS amount to the GST cash ledger of the seller and passes on the balance of the consideration to the seller after deducting their service charges.
…"
OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY HAS BEEN ATTACHED
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English