M/S N Ramkrishna Rly. Contractor vs. The State Of Karnataka And Ors

WP/226726/2020HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC03022866202018 September 2025Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI3 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. MALHAR RAO., AAG A/W SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R5; SRI.SUDHIRSINGH R.VIJAPUR., DSGI FOR R2; SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.GIRISH HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s N.Ramkrishna Rly. Contractor, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, the Union of India, the Superintendent (Preventive) Central GST Office, the Commissioner of Central GST & Central Excise, and the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to the filing of the writ petition is also not detailed.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. The oral submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, along with the filed memo, was placed on record. The Court accepted the petitioner's request for withdrawal, noting that the petitioner had consciously decided to do so and would not seek to recall the order or file a review petition. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No other issues were decided by the Court, and no specific provisions of the GST Act or Rules were discussed in relation to the merits of any dispute.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition, as per the memo filed? Petitioner's Argument: The counsel for the petitioner submitted a memo seeking permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. The petitioner stated that a conscious decision was made to withdraw the petition and that they would not seek to recall the order or file a review petition if an order permitting withdrawal was passed. Respondents' Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents in opposition to the withdrawal. The appearance of the counsel for the respondents is noted, but their contentions are not detailed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5567 WP No. 226726 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.226726 OF 2020 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S N.RAMKRISHNA RLY. CONTRACTOR (PROP RAMKRISHNA NUTANPATI NARSIVAPPA) AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O VENTAMURECORNER MIRAJ, SANGLI, MAHARASHTRA-416410. NOW AT RESIDING NANDI COLONY, BIDAR-585401. (GSTIN.29AANPN5830E1ZH) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEP VIJAYKUMAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, II FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. (REP. BY ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY) 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5567 WP No. 226726 of 2020 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT (PREVENTIVE) CENTRAL GST OFFICE, BEHIND TV STATION, KAPNOOR, TQ. AND DIST. KALABURAGI-585104. 4. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, 71, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, KARNATAKA GOODS & SERVICE TAX OFFICE LVO-540, BIDAR DIVISION, BIDAR-585401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALHAR RAO., AAG A/W SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 & R5; SRI.SUDHIRSINGH R.VIJAPUR., DSGI FOR R2; SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.GIRISH HULMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Sandeep Vijaykumar., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Malhar Rao., AAG along with Sri.Mallikarjun Sahukar., AGA for respondents 1 and 5 have appeared in person. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5567 WP No. 226726 of 2020

Counsel for the petitioner submits that a memo has been filed stating that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be taken on record and the Writ Petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. When queried, counsel for the petitioner submits that a conscious decision is taken by him and the petitioner to withdraw the petition and if an order is passed, they shall not seek for recalling the order or file review petition. The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioner and the memo is placed on record. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP,VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29.1

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.