Disposed

M/S. Sukruth Autoteck Industries v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2024WP/1750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST input tax credit denial order challenged; following coordinate bench orders and the Finance Act, 2024 amendment extending return-filing time, court set aside the impugned order, remanded petitioner to show cause notice stage with one month to reply.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.07.2023 set aside; petitioner remitted to show cause notice stage with one month to reply; respondents to consider case per amended provisions within two months.

M/S. Sukruth Autoteck Industries Vs the Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:49854 WP No. 1750 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 1750 OF 2024 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. SUKRUTH AUTOTECK INDUSTRIES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SMT.BHARATHI PUTTARASE GOWDA KADMANE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, REGISTERED OFFICE AT: OPP. RAPID PACK ENGINEERING THIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VISWANATH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, MINISTER OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA, VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:49854 WP No. 1750 of 2024

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-075, IST FLOOR, 4^TH PHASE, KIADB BUILDING, 14^TH CROSS, PEENYA 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. JYOTI M MARADI, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE AN STRIKE DOWN SECTION 16(4) AND THE PROVISO OF THE CGST/SGST ACTS AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE SAME BEING VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLES 14 AND 19(1)(g) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST/KGST Acts'). There is a delay in filing of GST returns and claiming input tax for the financial year 2017-

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:49854 WP No. 1750 of 2024

¶28

2018 by the petitioner. Hence the show cause notice was issued and the impugned order came to be passed.

¶29

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶30

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for

¶31

petitioner submits that amendment has been effected to Finance Act, 2024 more particularly, Section 118, wherein, time for filing the GST returns and also claiming input tax credit has been extended and certain circulars have been issued by the State thereafter and the petitioner would be satisfied if the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity to reply to show cause notice issued and would not press for any other relief. It is further submitted that Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in similar circumstances has passed orders accordingly.

¶32

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State Government has no objection for the same.

¶33

As similar matters have been remanded to the stage

¶34

of show cause notice, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to pass a similar order for the instant writ

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49854 WP No. 1750 of 2024

¶36

petition also there is no reason why the orders passed in

¶37

W.P.No.6138/2020 or W.P.No.29139/2024 should not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Hence, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i) The writ petition is disposed of ;

¶40

ii) The petitioner is relegated to the stage of show cause notice issued by respondent No.4 and the subsequent impugned order dated 19.07.2023 (Annexure-B) is hereby set aside;

¶41

iii) The petitioner is granted one month from today to reply to show cause notice;

¶42

iv) Respondents are directed to give effect to and implement the amended provisions contained in the Finance Act, 2014 and the CGST/KGST Acts and subsequent circulars that have been issued and consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass suitable orders within a period of two months thereafter.

¶43

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶44

M/S. Sukruth Autoteck Industries v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sukruth Autoteck Industries v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravikumar D R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Maraiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Archak Shamanna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Naganna Eranna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Ambligola Project Private Limited Vs Union of India

Thomas Domnic Savid Vs the Commercial Tax Officer