Disposed¶25

M/S Muralikrishna Infracon (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., v. Senior Intelligence Officer

Karnataka HC12 Feb 2025WP/4068/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; S.G. Pandit J; decided 12.02.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:6429; WP No. 4068 of 2025 (T-RES); challenge to summons dated 07.01.2025 under Section 70 of CGST Act, 2017 issued by Senior Intelligence Officer, DGGI Bengaluru Zonal Unit (File No. DGGI/INV/GST/1857/2023-GR; DIN CBIC-DIN-202501DSS0000082398D); held premature to approach Court under Article 226 without first replying to summons; disposed with liberty to reply at first instance; all contentions left open.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to reply to the summons at the first instance; all contentions left open. ¶25

M/S Muralikrishna Infracon (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6429 WP No. 4068 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO. 4068 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

M/S. MURALIKRISHNA INFRACON (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD., COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 OFFICE AT FLAT A-309, A BLOCK, UNIQUE CONCORDE APARTMENTS, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI MAIN ROAD, TATA NAGAR, NEAR VYASA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, BENGALURU - 560 092. REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR SRI. M MURALI KRISHNA S/O M JANARDHANA RAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT 3/14, KRISHNAPURAM, KARVETINAGAR, CHITTOR, ANDRA PRADESH - 51758. …PETITIONER (BY MISS. VINITHA M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAN MAIYA G.L, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, SP ENCLAVE, NO. 112, KH ROAD,

¶11

¶12

NC: 2025:KHC:6429 WP No. 4068 of 2025

¶13

BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MADHU N. RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION OF APPROPRIATE NATURE TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE CASE AND AFTER SCRUTINIZING THE SAME, TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED SUMMONS DATED 07-01-2025 VIDE FILE NO.DGGI/INV/GST/1857/2023-GR D-04-O/O PR ADG-DGGI-ZU IN CBIC-DIN-202501DSS0000082398D ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning Annexure-A dated 07.01.2025 summons issued under Section 70 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 to appear before the Authority and to produce certain documents.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are multiple investigations against the petitioner

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6429 WP No. 4068 of 2025

¶23

including investigation by Directorate General of GST and Commercial Tax Department. Therefore, petitioner is not in a position to produce the documents sought for by the respondent/authorities under impugned summons.

¶24

When the summons is received by the petitioner, it is open for the petitioner to reply either by producing the documents sought or by explaining the reasons for not producing the documents as sought in the summons. Without first replying to the summons, approaching this Court would be premature.

¶25

Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to reply to the summons, at the first instance.

¶26

All contentions are left open.

¶27

Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶28

¶29

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 74 CT: BHK

M/S Muralikrishna Infracon (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., v. Senior Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Muralikrishna Infracon (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., v. Senior Intelligence Officer

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. T. Jayalakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. K. Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Yashoda S Arumugham Vs the High Court of Karnataka

M/S R .R Gold Palace Private Limited Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Concord Construction Vs Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax (AUDIT-2)

Akshay Kumar N Vs State Bank of India