M/S Qadri And Company vs. Commerciala Tax Officer
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: (i) Quashing the impugned detention order dated 06.12.2022 in Form GST MOV-6 bearing No. CTO(ENF-08)/HBL/P- 32/22-23 passed by the 1st Respondent under section 129(1) of the CGST and KGST Acts read with section 20 of the IGST Act (Annexure ‘A’);
(ii) Quashing the impugned confiscation order dated 09.01.2023 in Form GST MOV-11 bearing No.CTO/ENF- 08/HBL/MOV-11/2022-23 passed by the 1st Respondent under section 130 of the CGST and KGST Acts read with section 20 if the IGST Act (Annexure ‘B’);
(iii) Quashing the impugned appellate order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the 2nd Respondent under section 107(11) of the KGST Act, 2017, in Appeal No. APL/GST-88/2022-23 (Annexure ‘C’);
(iv) Directing the 1st Respondent to effect release of the goods and conveyance detained by him as expeditiously as possible and, in any even, within a period of 4 weeks from the order passed by this Hon’ble Court; and (v) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and 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:12979
During the pendency of the above matter, in terms of the interim order dated 25.09.2023, the petitioner has deposited 20% of the differential demand of tax raised. 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 20%, 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:12979
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: UMD List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7
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.