Sri. A Bhupal Reddy S/O Late Rami Reddy vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 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.
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.
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
The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court on account of the GST Tribunal not having commenced working. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12981
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.
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.
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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12981
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.
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. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
gab CT:PA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 14
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.