Disposed

Larsen and Toubro Limited v. the Designated Committee

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2024WP/6729/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST writ petition challenging rejection of a Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 declaration on jurisdictional grounds. The court found the order was passed by respondent No.2 in individual capacity rather than by the designated committee and set it aside.

What the court decided

AI extract

Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs the Designated Committee — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:41564 WP No. 6729 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 6729 OF 2022 (T-IT)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT L & T HOUSE, N M MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001. AND HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.19, 1^ST AND 2^ND FLOOR, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS HEAD-CORPORATE INDIRECT TAXATION COMPLIANCE MR. RAJU IYER.

¶9

(BY SRI. BHARATH JANARTHANAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU SOUTH, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:41564 WP No. 6729 of 2022

¶16

BENGALURU SOUTH, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU SOUTH, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX O/O THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SOUTH DIVISION-4, 7^TH FLOOR, C WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS-1) O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APEEALS-1) TRAFFIC TRANSIT MANAGEMENT CENTRE, BMTC BUILDING, 4^TH FLOOR, ABOVE BMTC BUS STAND, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 071.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO.C.No.IV/03/282/2019-20 DATED 09.03.2020 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A REJECTING THE DECLARATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SVLDRS, 2019 AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:41564 WP No. 6729 of 2022

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2, the assessee has filed this writ petition.

¶29

Pursuant to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the petitioner filed a declaration for the period from March, 2013 to August, 2015. The same had to be treated as a declaration under the litigation scheme and a decision had to be taken by the committee constituted for the said purpose, which is impleaded in the instant writ petition as respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is a member of the said committee. However, in the instant case, instead of respondent No.1 taking a decision in respect of declaration filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has taken a decision in his individual official capacity and has passed the impugned order. The same is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.2 does not have the necessary jurisdiction to pass the same.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:41564 WP No. 6729 of 2022

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the revenue fairly submits that the jurisdiction is vested with respondent No.1.

¶33

As the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction by respondent No.2, the same is liable to be set aside and remanded back to respondent No.1 with a direction to adjudicate the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The impugned order dated 09.03.2020 bearing No.C.No.IV/03/282/2019-20 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside;

¶36

ii) The matter stands remanded back to respondent No.1 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter as expeditiously as possible.

¶37

iii) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶38

SD/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶39

PGG

Larsen and Toubro Limited v. the Designated Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Larsen and Toubro Limited v. the Designated Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri T v Rudresha Vs the Principal Secretary

Chinnapapamma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kanakaraju M Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Navinchandra Kalyanji and Co., Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise and GST

Sbicap Trustee Company Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax

Sbicap Trustee Company Ltd. Vs Tax Recovery Officer