Rahimansab S/O. Davalsab Doddamani vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
I. Issue a Writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Notifications and the circular instructions that have led to levy of GST on the amount of royalty specifically including circular bearing no. 164/20.2021-gst dated 6.10.2021 vide Annexure-D issue by respondent no.
II. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an adjudicating Order U/s. 73(9) of the KGST act and CGST act-2017 for the financial year 2019-20, bearing no. ACCT(AUDIT)/HPT/GST-ADJN/ORDER-73/2024- 25/T, dated 29.08.2024, passed by respondent no.2 vide Annexure- H, insofor as petitioner firm is concerned.
III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to consider the reply dated 03.06.2024 vide Annexure E.
IV. Pass/issue any other writ or order as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and of the case, to meet the interest of justice and equity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mineral Area Development HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14892 Authority Vs. Steel Authority of India1, wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “E. Conclusion
The submission that MADA [Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, (2024) 10 SCC 1] should be given prospective effect is rejected.
Bearing in mind the consequences that would emanate from the past period, the following conditionalities are directed to prevail:
While the States may levy or renew demands of tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49 and 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in the decision in MADA [Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL, (2024) 10 SCC 1] the demand of tax shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1-4- 2005;
The time for payment of the demand of tax shall be staggered in instalments over a period of twelve years commencing from 1-4-2026; and
The levy of interest and penalty on demands made for the period before 25-7-2024 shall stand waived for all the assessees.”
The learned AGA would not dispute the position with regard to the matter being covered qua royalty, but the representation of the petitioner will have to be considered by the appropriate Authority as is directed by the Apex Court.
In that light, the petition deserves to succeed, albeit in part. The impugned Order–in–Original at Annexure-H stands
1 (2024) 10 SCC 257 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14892 quashed and respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner, qua royalty, bearing in mind the observations made by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgement, within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Ordered accordingly.
All contentions are kept open. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76
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.