M/S Hukkeri Taluka Samagra Grameen vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Petitioner Sangha is a registered taxpayer providing manpower supply services to various Government Departments and Authorities. It is registered under the Central Goods and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8327 Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘CGST Act’) and Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the KGST Act’) with G.S.T. I.N. No.29AAAAH1667D1ZU.
Petitioner claims to be an honest, diligent and prompt tax payer under the GST Act and has been timely paying the returns as per law without any liabilities. This being the state of affairs, respondent No.9 on 20.01.2024 prepared manual intelligence Report/Note alleging a discrepancy of Rs.36,00,000/- between petitioner’s GSTR-3B and GSTR-7 returns, accordingly sought for an authorization to inspect the business premises of the petitioner. On the same day, invoking powers under Section 67(1) of the Central GST Act, respondent no.6 issued an authorization in Form GST INS-01 dated 20.01.2024 to conduct inspection of the petitioner’s business premises, but failed to mention the complete address of the property in the relevant column. It is the case of petitioner that respondent no.9 visited and entered the premises and not only conducted inspection, but performed unauthorized search using threat of arrest legal consequences and intimidated the petitioner and its staff. It is further contended that a series of endorsements were issued demanding payment of penalty and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8327 interest amounting to Rs.2,33,91,504/-. It is the contention of learned counsel that coercively payments were recovered without issuing any statutory notice or order and respondent no.9 belatedly initiated statutory procedure under the GST Act by issuing pre-SCN intimation under Section 74(5) for 2017-18. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that by making several allegations against the respondent statutory authorities that they have conducted unlawful search and has recovered money forcefully by threat of arrest and therefore the entire process initiated by them is illegal as coercive methods were used forcing the petitioner to pay the amount, which is recovered by the respondent authorities. It is the contention of petitioner that he has preferred an appeal under Section 107(1) of the GST Act before the appellate authority, which is pending adjudication and the same is not being conducted in an expeditious manner. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellate authority to dispose of the matter expeditiously as the petitioner is dependant on the said income which is forceful recovery and he does not have to pay any amount. It is further contended that the petitioner has very HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8327 good case on merits, the amount i.e., recovered is without appropriate procedure and it by undue influence and force and coercion. Therefore, the present petitioner is filed seeking a writ of mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decision in support of his case : (i) Dabur India Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1990] 1990 taxmann.com 101 (SC). (ii) Radhika Agarwal vs. Union of India, [2025] Industries, [2025] 171 taxmann.com 739 (Karnataka). (iv) Union of India vs. Bundi Technologies (P.) Ltd., [2022] 136 taxmann.com 112 (Karnataka).
These Judgments may be helpful to the petitioner in the appeal proceedings as the present petition is for a writ of mandamus for consideration as it is for the appellate authorities to decide whether the amount i.e., collected is voluntarily or involventary or by way of force, coercion or undue influence. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8327
Per Contra, the learned AGA representing the respondent/State denies the averments and contents stated with regard to any force, coercion or undue influence or threat being used to collect the statutory dues in the GST Act. There is an order passed by the authorities which is now questioned by the petitioner before the appellate authority. The appellate authority would decide on merits in accordance with law and respondent would co-operate in disposal of the said appeal. The said appeal is preferred on 13.02.2025, now we are in the month of July, 2025. The appellate authority is yet to issue notice to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that when the petitioner has failed to challenge the orders of authority for imposition of tax and recovery of the amount, same would have to be decided in the time bound manner. Accordingly, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) Writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.5 to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8327 taking into consideration decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases mentioned hereinabove, the appeal shall be disposed of. (iii) The 5th respondent shall issue notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and decide the appeal within six weeks thereafter. (iv) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (v) All contentions of the petitioner and respondents are kept open. (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE
CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
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.