Shri.Mohammad Ismail Kazi vs. The Commissioner Of
Held
The Court allowed the petition, finding that it was squarely covered by the decision in Sri. T. Uma Shankar Vs. The Government of India – W.P.No.21608/2024. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure-A), the Order-in-Appeal dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure-B), and the Order-in-Original dated 03.05.2022 (Annexure-C) were quashed. The Court directed the respondents to issue a Discharge Certificate under Form SVLDRS-4 for the payment of Rs. 5,42,582/- made on 01.07.2020. Furthermore, respondents 1, 2, and 4 were directed to process the refund of Rs. 2,72,533/- along with applicable interest, after due verification and in accordance with law, within three months. The ratio decidendi is that if a case is directly and squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same High Court, it should be disposed of in terms of that judgment.
Facts
The petitioner, Shri. Mohammad Ismail Kazi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash several notices and orders issued by various GST authorities. These included a notice dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure-A) from Respondent No. 4, an Order-in-Appeal dated 08.08.2023 (Annexure-B) from Respondent No. 1, and an Order-in-Original dated 03.05.2022 (Annexure-C) from Respondent No. 3. The petitioner also sought to quash a Show Cause Notice dated 30.12.2020 and requested a mandamus to process a refund of Rs. 2,72,533/- and to issue a Discharge Certificate under Form SVLDRS-4 for a payment of Rs. 5,42,582/- made under the SVLDRS Scheme.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned notice dated 15.07.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4, the Order-in-Appeal dated 08.08.2023 passed by Respondent No. 1, and the Order-in-Original dated 03.05.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 are liable to be quashed. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,72,533/-. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Discharge Certificate under Form SVLDRS-4 for the payment of Rs. 5,42,582/-. The petitioner contended that the present petition is covered by a previous order of the High Court in Sri. T. Uma Shankar Vs. The Government of India – W.P.No.21608/2024 dated 18.09.2024. The respondents argued that the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment text provided.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54350 WP No. 30430 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30430 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
SHRI.MOHAMMAD ISMAIL KAZI S/O MOHIDDEN BADSHA KAZI AGED ABOPUT 78 YEARS RESIDING AT CORBETT DR PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA 92870. …PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAPTARSHI MUKHOPADHYAY, ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR SMT. LOCHANA.S. BABU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST AND CNETRAL EXCISE (APPEALS) NO.71 CLUB ROAD
BELAGAVI 590 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX 7TH FLOOR, TRADE CENTER
BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD
MANAGLURU – 575 003. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX SOUTH DIVISION 5TH FLOOR
PUNJA BUILDING ANNEXE LALBAGH
MANGALORE 575 003. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX KADRI RANGE 5TH FLOOR PUNJA
BUILDING ANNEXURE LALBAGH
MANAGALORE – 575 003. B M Location: High Court of Karnataka HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.