Sri. a Bhupal Reddy S/O Late Rami Reddy Vs the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12981 WP No. 102073 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 102073 OF 2024 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. A BHUPAL REDDY S/O. LATE RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. BHUPAL REDDY COMPOUND, BEHIND PETROL BUNK, ASHOK NAGAR, HAVAMBHAVI-583102, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRIYUTHS. B SHARANABASAWA AND SAJEED A. TAMBOOLI, ADVOCATES)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, DAVANGERE, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANGERE-577006.

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-2), VANIJYA TERIGE BHAVANA, DEVRAJ URS BADAVANE, ”A” BLOCK, P.B.ROAD, DAVANAGERE, TQ. AND DIST. DAVANAGERE-577006.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R2)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12981 WP No. 102073 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 31-01-2024, IN APPEAL NO. KGST/AP25/2023-2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, TO REFUND THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF TAX, INTEREST AND PENALTY ETC, COLLECTED/RECOVERED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned order dt. 31-01-2024, in Appeal No. KGST/AP-25/2023-2024 passed by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-C.

¶26

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents, to refund the excess amount of tax, interest and penalty etc, collected/recovered by the petitioner.

¶27

c. Issue such any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity

¶28

The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court

¶29

on account of the GST Tribunal not having commenced

¶30

working.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12981 WP No. 102073 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 30% of the disputed tax amount is deposited even prior to the filing of the petition. In that view of the matter, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 112(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the KGST Act’, for short), inasmuch as 20% of the tax amount required to be paid in terms of Section 112(8)(a) of the KGST Act, has been paid by the petitioner.

¶34

In view of the said deposit of 30%, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount are deemed to be stayed in terms of Section 112(9) of the KGST Act.

¶35

The Tribunal though notified is yet to be constituted and commence functioning, as and when the Tribunal is constituted and commences functioning, it would be for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal to seek appropriate reliefs within a period of 60 days of the commencement of working by the Tribunal.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12981 WP No. 102073 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

In that view of the matter, the above petition is disposed of, providing benefit of Section 112(9) of the KGST Act to the petitioner, until 60 days after the commencement of the working of the GST Tribunal. Needless to say, in the event of the necessary appeal not being filed within 60 days of the commencement of the working of the GST Tribunal, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 112(9) of the KGST Act.

¶39

Since the GST Tribunal has not been constituted, the time period which has been fixed under Section 112 of the KGST Act would stand extended by two months from the date of commencement of the working of the GST Tribunal. All contentions are kept open.

¶40

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶41

gab CT:PA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 14

Sri. a Bhupal Reddy S/O Late Rami Reddy v. the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a Bhupal Reddy S/O Late Rami Reddy v. the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Usha Bhaskar Bhakta Vs the Divisional Controller

Anil Mallanagouda Patil Vs the Union of India

Nagappa S/O Bheemappa Kadakola Vs Smt Indramma W/O Prakash Katagi

Ganapati S/O Baburao Gunde Vs Rudresh S/O Irappa Byadagi

Nagaraj S/O Dattaram Palankar Vs Vinay S/O Dattaram Palankar

Ningappa B Noolvi S/O Basavantappa Vs State of Karnataka