Yallappa R Patil Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8872 WP No. 102040 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102040 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

YALLAPPA R. PATIL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. 04/B, YADWAD MAIN ROAD, TIGADI, TQ: AND DIST: BELGAUM-591227, GSTIN: 29ADWPP7297F1ZH

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H.R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DGSTO, ”SUMOULYA SOUDHA”, 2^ND FLOOR, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶12

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, GOKAK RANGE, BSNL, AGM OFFICE BUILDING, GRBC EXTENSION AREA, BEHIND LAXMI TEMPLE, GOKAK-591307.

¶15

THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT’S FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R4; SRI. SHIVARAJ BALLOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. V.M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8872 WP No. 102040 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

¶22

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶23

A. ISSUE WRIT OF NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION DATED 22-07-2019 VIDE ORDER REFERENCE NO.ZA2907190780495, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

B. ISSUE WRIT OF NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.08.2024 VIDE ORDER REFERENCE NO. 317/ACCT/AUD-2/DRC-07/13/24-25/B175, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

C. ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR IN THE LIKE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1, OR ALTERNATIVELY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO OPEN THE PORTAL OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶29

The petitioner is a proprietary concern and registered

¶30

dealer under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and under the provisions of the Karnataka Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

¶31

Respondent No.2 has issued a show cause notice

¶32

for cancellation of the registration on the ground that the petitioner had failed to file returns. Thereafter, respondent

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8872 WP No. 102040 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

No.1 passed summary order under Section 73(9) of the Act stating that no payment has been made within 30 days from the date of issuance of the notice to the tax payer. Accordingly, the impugned order is passed against the petitioner.

¶36

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner by the respondents is illegal and contrary to the

¶37

provisions of the Act as no notice was given and no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner and so also initiation of the proceedings is barred by time.

¶38

Learned counsel further contends that the reason for non-filing of the returns was due to medical difficulties and medical reasons. He relies on an order of a coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 107549/2024 (T-RES) contending that in the identical case, this court had allowed the petition and condoned the delay and relegated the petitioner to file an appeal under

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8872 WP No. 102040 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Section 107 of the CGST Act. He seeks similar order in this case.

¶42

Per Contra, the learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 4 relies upon an order of coordinate bench of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 102199/2025 (T-RES) C/w. Writ Petition No.102258/2025 and contends that the present writ petition would not be maintainable as there is alternative efficacious remedy is available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition; he would have to be relegated to the appellate remedy. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this petition.

¶43

I am in agreement with the learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent No.2 that when there is an alternative efficacious remedy is available, the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained, as the parties would have to be relegated to explore and exhaust the alternative remedy available.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8872 WP No. 102040 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

With regard to the contentions taken up by

¶47

learned counsel for the petitioner, he can also urge all such contentions including the ground of medical difficulty before the appellate authority, same would be taken into consideration including the Judgment referred to supra

¶48

before passing of any order by the appellate authority. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) Writ petition is disposed off.

¶51

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, if so advised.

¶52

(iii) All contentions urged herein by the petitioner are permitted to be urged before the appellate authority including the ground of medical reason for delay. Upon such presentation of the appeal, the appellate

¶53