V. S. Ravishankar And Srinivas Patel vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax

Original PDF →
WP/13726/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01026065202514 August 2025Bench: M.NAGAPRASANNA5 pages
For Petitioner: SRI PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI AKASH B.SHETTY, ADVOCATE

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31510 WP No. 13726 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13726 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: V.S.RAVISHANKAR AND SRINIVAS PATEL A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI V.S.RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, VINAYAKA VILAS, 1ST BLOCK HUNASAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU RURAL – 562 157 EMAIL: pradyumnagh@yahoo.co.in MOB: 98452 75804. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU NORTH COMMISSIONARATE, H.M.T.BHAVAN GANGA NAGAR, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 032. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU NORTH COMMISSIONARATE, H.M.T.BHAVAN GANGA NAGAR, BELLARY ROAD Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31510 WP No. 13726 of 2025 BENGALURU – 560 032. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX DND - 8 RANGE BENGALURU NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, H.M.T.BHAVAN GANGA NAGAR, BELLARY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AKASH B.SHETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL BERING NO.63-2024-25-GST-JC (DIN 2024 1257 000 000 41994E) DATED 09.12.2024 (ANNEXURE- A) PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash impugned Order-in-Original bearing No.63/2024-25/GST/JC (DIN 2024 1257 000 000 41994E) dated 09.12.2024 [Annexure-A] passed by the First Respondent.

(b) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31510

2.

Heard Sri Pradyumna Hejib, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Akash B. Shetty, learned counsel for respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue in the case is squarely covered by the order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.8391/2025, disposed on 21.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for respondents – revenue would not dispute the position of law.

5.

The order passed in W.P.No.8391/2025, reads as follows:

2.

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 27.06.2024, respondent issued Show Cause Notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 to the petitioner, who filed his replies to the same on 07.01.2025. 3. It is contended that when the Show Cause Notice was issued, the issue in controversy involved in the present petition relatable to the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mineral Area Development Authority Vs. Steel Authority – (2024) 21 Centax 378 (S.C.) at Annexure-H and Mineral Area Development Authority Vs. Steel Authority of India – (2024) 21 Centax 313 (S.C.) at Annexure-J, which were ultimately disposed of vide orders dated 25.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31510 respectively, despite which the respondent did not consider the same while passing the impugned order dated 16.01.2025, which is assailed in the present petition

4.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 at Annexure-A, will indicate that though Show Cause Notice was issued when the matters were pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the judgments at Annexures-H and J dated 25.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 respectively have not been considered by the respondent while passing the impugned order.

5.

Under these circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order-in- original dated 16.01.2025 and remit the matter back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law.”

In the light of the afore-quoted order and facts obtaining the case at hand, which covers the issue on all its fours, the impugned order requires to be obliterated and direct respondent No.1 to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

6.

For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order-in-original dated 09.12.2024 at Annexure-A passed by respondent No.1, is hereby set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31510 iii) The matter is remitted back for reconsideration afresh to the hands of respondent No.1 after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. iv) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:SS

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.