Allowed

M/S Latha Multi Tech Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Nov 2024WP/4785/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Writ relief for time-bound repayment of GST dues and restoration of e-way bill facility after registration cancellation due to non-filing during COVID-19. The Single Judge allowed the petition, permitting installment payment and ordering restoration of registration.

What did the court decide?

Payment of tax dues in 12 monthly installments; restoration of GST registration; unblocking of e-way bill generation facility.

M/S Latha Multi Tech Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46676 WP No. 4785 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.4785 OF 2022 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. LATHA MULTI TECH ENTERPRISES, NO.14, SY.NO.112, GROUND FLOOR, DODDANNA INDSUTRIAL ESATE, 12^TH CROSS, NEAR PEENYA SECOND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 091. REP. BY ITS PROP. BHOJARAJU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally

¶13

signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPT OF FINANCE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, COMMERCIAL TAXES BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LVO, LGSTO-075, VITC EXPORTS BHAVAN, 1^ST FLOOR, KIADB COMPLEX,

¶17

14^TH CROSS, IV PHASE,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:46676 WP No. 4785 of 2022

¶20

PEENYA INDSUTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560 058.

¶21

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (E GOVERNANCE) STATE NODAL OFFICE FOR E-WAY BILL, COMMERCIAL TAXES BUIDLINGS, GANDHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. JYOTI M.MARADI, HCGP)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.ADCOM(R&R)/ITL/CR-02/2021-22 DATED 19.11.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is involved in the manufacturing of machine tools and is a registered dealer under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Acts'). However, as returns were not filed from October 2020 to June 2021, the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled and his e-way bill generation

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:46676 WP No. 4785 of 2022

¶31

has been blocked. The petitioner on the ground that due to covid-19 pandemic he suffered immense loss, requested the authorities concerned to grant him sometime to pay the admitted tax liability and also made a request for unblocking of his e-way bill generation. However, both request came to be rejected by way of impugned order dated 19.11.2021 (vide Annexure-K to the writ petition) and the impugned order dated 17.03.2022 (vide Annexure-O to the writ petition).

¶32

Admittedly, as the petitioner has committed default in payment of taxes and filing of returns for the period October, 2020 to June, 2021, respondent authorities have rightly cancelled his GST registration and have also blocked his e-way bill generation. However, it has to be taken note of the fact that the same happened during the covid-19 period and the petitioner was otherwise regular in payment of taxes and payment of GST returns. The Government under these circumstances, have given concessions to similar persons. It is not that petitioner is

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46676 WP No. 4785 of 2022

¶34

contending that he will not pay the tax along with interest thereon, but he has only requesting the authorities concerned to give him sometime to pay the same under installments. Further, he is also making a request for unblocking of his e-way bill and restoration of the GST registration, without which, he will not be able to continue his business at all.

¶35

Thus, under the given peculiar facts and

¶36

circumstances of the case, without making this a precedent, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to grant the petitioner sometime to pay the admitted tax liability along with due interest and penalty thereon and also direct the authorities concerned to unblock e-way bill generation facility and also restore the GST registration of the petitioner. Hence, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The petitioner shall pay the entire tax dues along with interest and penalty as demanded by

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:46676 WP No. 4785 of 2022

¶41

the authorities concerned within 12 equal monthly installments;

¶42

ii) The respondents shall forthwith restore the GST registration of the petitioner and also unblock his e-way bill generation facility;

¶43

iii) If the petitioner were to commit any default in payment of one installment, respondent authorities have the liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law and the petitioner will lose the benefit of this judgment;

¶44

iv) The first installment shall be paid on or before 19.12.2024;

¶45

v) This judgment will not be treated as precedent;

¶46

vi) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶48

PGG

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

M/S Latha Multi Tech Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Latha Multi Tech Enterprises v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt. Sundramma Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri.R.Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Biligamma, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T Mohan Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Lokappa Gowda K Vs Smt. Shakunthala Rai

M Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka