M/S. Uno Minda Limited Vs Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15374 WP No. 11240 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11240 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. UNO MINDA LIMITED, SY. NO. 209-P, PLOT NO. 40, HOBLI JAIPURA, KADAKOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, KADAKOLA VILLAGE, MYSURU – 570 016, (REPRESENTED BY MR. V. VASUDEVAN) INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN AND SRI. TUSHAR SHARMA, ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ENFORCEMENT), MYSURU ZONE, NO. 487, BIDARAM KRISHNAPPA ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSORE.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT)-1, MYSURU ZONE,

¶14

MYSURU.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. HEMAKUMAR K., AGA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SETTING ASIDE AND QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. 01/2024-25 BEARING RFN MA290125039586N AND ORDER NO. 02/2024-25 BEARING RFN MA2901250415607 BOTH DATED 08.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:15374 WP No. 11240 of 2025

¶20

RESPONDENT NO.2 ENCLOSED AT ANNEXURE-A1 AND ANNEXURE-A2 RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India setting aside and quashing the impugned Order No. 01/2024-25 bearing RFN MA290125039586N and Order No. 02/2024-25 bearing RFN MA2901250415607 both dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2 enclosed at Annexure-A1 and Annexure-A2 respectively;

¶25

b) hold that the interest under Section 50 of the CGST Act for the period from July 2017 to March 2019, on the alleged belated payment of GST is not payable as confirmed;

¶26

c) hold that the penalty in terms of Section 74(9) read with Section 122(2)(b) of CGST Act is not imposable as confirmed;

¶27

d) alternatively, direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner of all the benefits available under the Amnesty scheme provided vide Section 128A of the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of the demands pertaining to the period from July 2017 to March, 2018 and April 2018 to March 2019;

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:15374 WP No. 11240 of 2025

¶30

e) pass such further order(s) and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”

¶31

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶32

AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶33

After arguing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme as contemplated under Section 128(A) of the Central Goods and Service Act, 2013 (for short “the CGST Act”) and as such, the impugned orders purported to have been passed under Section 74(9) of the CGST Act may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, by treating the proceedings as proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act and pass appropriate order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act and by directing respondent No.2 to grant the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, in favour of the petitioner, who would file such an application before respondent No.2.

¶34

The aforesaid submission is placed on record.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and

¶36

the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:15374 WP No. 11240 of 2025

¶39

petitioner intends to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders at Annexure-A and A1 and remit the matter back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law by issuing certain directions.

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The petition is allowed.

¶43

ii. The impugned orders at Annexures-A1 and A2 respectively, both dated 08.01.2025, passed by respondent No.2, is hereby set aside.

¶44

iii. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.2 for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law.

¶45

iv. The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2 on 05.05.2025, without awaiting further notice from respondent No.2.

¶46

v. Respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders by treating the proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act and pass appropriate orders under Section

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:15374 WP No. 11240 of 2025

¶49

73(9) of the CGST Act, within one week from

¶50

05.05.2025.

¶51

vi. The petitioner is also entitled to file an application to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme and if such an application is filed before respondent No2, respondent No.2 shall grant petitioner the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, as contemplated under Section 128(A) of the CGST Act, in accordance with law.

¶52

vii. All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶53

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶54

BMC

¶55

List No.: 4 Sl No.: 6

M/S. Uno Minda Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Uno Minda Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

Sankalpa School of Nursing Vs the Registrar

M/S Seema Caterers Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Safan Fasteners Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S.S.a. Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Thimmareddy Munjula Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Hi Tech Audio Systms Private Limited Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax