BharatTaxGST

M/S Nexus Shantiniketan Retail Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/9868/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01022530202528 April 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR7 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. BHARAT BHAGWAN RAICHANDANI, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. MADANAN PILLAI, CGC FOR R1; SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5; SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADV. FOR R6

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17587 WP No. 9868 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9868 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S NEXUS SHANTINIKETAN RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS GENERAL MANAGE. ROOPA R P. AGED 52 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF RAMA PATWARDHAN, HAVING OFFICE AT LGF, MALL MANAGEMENT OFFICE, NEXUS SHANTINIKETAN MALL, ITPL MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066. (THE REGISTER UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1958) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARAT BHAGWAN RAICHANDANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, EAST DIVISION - 7, BENGALURU EAST COMMISSIONERATE, BMTC BUS STAND, HAL AIRPORT ROAD, DOMMALURU, BENGALURU – 560 071. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, RECOVERY CELL, PRENGOLTURA EXT CGST, DIVISION- 7, 3RD FLOOR, B WING, TTMC-BMTC BUILDING, DOMMALURA, BENGALURU – 560 071. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU NORTH COMMISSIONERATE, HMT BHAVAN, GANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17587 WP No. 9868 of 2025 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, AND-2 RANGE, NORTH DIVISION-II, NO. 29/2, CRESENT ROAD, BASAWESHVARA BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, BENGALURU – 560 001. 6. THE BANK MANAGER, CICI BANK, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANAN PILLAI, CGC FOR R1; SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV. FOR R2 TO R5; SRI. FRANCIS XAVIER, ADV. FOR R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTILCE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND AFTER GOING INTO THE VALIDITY AND LEGALITY OF THE PROVISIONS SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN FORM GST DRC-13 VIDE DIN 20250357000000666D0E DATED 27.03.2025 (ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AS BAD IN LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo along with documents and the same are taken on record.

2.

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions set aside and quash the Impugned Notice in Form GST DRC-13 NC: 2025:KHC:17587 vide DIN 20250357000000666d0E dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by the Respondent No.2 as bad in law. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions direct the Respondent No.6 to not to pay / release the sum of Rs.9,51,79,611/- under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act in terms of Impugned Notice in Form GST DRC-13 vide DIN 20250357000000666D0E dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by the Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.6. c) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions direct the Respondent No.4 to serve the Order in Original vide No.02/GST/2023-24 dated 23.06.2024 and to consider the date of serving the order as date of the communication of the order. d) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus and after going into the validity and legality of the provisions direct the Respondent No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.56,44,918/- along with interest, which was recovered by Respondent No.2 under force and threat (Annexure-M). e) Issue a writ of Mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus and direct the Respondent No.2 by himself, his subordinate servants and agents, pending disposal of the present NC: 2025:KHC:17587 petition not take coercive action based on the Impugned Notice in Form GST DRC-13 vide DIN 20250357000000666D0E dated 27.03.2025 (Annexure-B) issued by the Respondent No.2; f) Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice. g) Issue a direction to provide for the cost of this petition.”

3.

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of furnishing of Order-in- Original dated 23.06.2023 to the petitioner via email dated 22.04.2025 by the respondents during the pendency of the present petition, the present petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority in accordance with law and by continuing the interim order passed by this Court for a period of four weeks from today. The said submission is placed on record.

4.

On 02.04.2025, 04.04.2025 and 15.04.2024, the following interim orders were passed by this Court:-

Dated 02.04.2025 “Sri. Madanan Pillai, learned CGC is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. NC: 2025:KHC:17587 Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Sri. Francis Xavier, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.

6.

Copies to be served.

Re-list on 04.04.2025. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed not to withdraw / recover further money from the bank account of the petitioner in respondent No.6 – bank, till the next date of hearing. Office objection to be complied with by the next date of hearing. Hand delivery of this order is permitted.”

Dated 04.04.2025 “Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to produce a copy of the order dated 23.06.2024 passed against the petitioner by the next date of hearing. Re-list on 17.03.2025 at 2:30 p.m. In the meanwhile, in addition to the interim direction/order dated 02.04.2025, whereby respondent Nos.1 to 5 were directed not to withdraw/recover any further money from the bank account of the petitioner from respondent No.6-Bank, respondent No.6-Bank shall permit the petitioner to operate the bank account, until further orders. Hand delivery of this order is permitted.” NC: 2025:KHC:17587 Dated 15.04.2025 “This matter came up for hearing on 04.04.2025 and this Court directed the matter to be listed on 17.04.2025. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has moved the present petition to be taken up today i.e., 15.04.2025 at 2:30 p.m., inter alia contending that despite pendency of the present petition and the interim orders dated 02.04.2025 and 04.04.2025 passed by this Court, respondents have issued two notices in Form GST DRC-13, both dated 20.03.2025, to the tenants of the petitioner i.e., M/s Reliance Project and Property Management Services Ltd., and M/s. Westside Unit of Trent Ltd., and as such, there is urgency in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo of even date, enclosing copies of two notices, both dated 20.03.2025 and the same are taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to obtain instructions. Re-list on 23.04.2025 at 2:30 p.m. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed not to take any precipitative/coercive steps against any of the tenants of the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid notices or otherwise, till the next date of hearing. In addition thereto, the interim orders dated 02.04.2025 and 04.04.2025 are extended till the next date of hearing. Hand delivery of this order is permitted.” NC: 2025:KHC:17587

5.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal before the appellate authority within a period of six weeks from today. It is further directed that the interim orders passed by this Court in the present petition shall continue for a period of six weeks from today. The amounts already recovered by the respondents shall be subject to the final outcome of the appeals to be filed by the petitioner. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

Srl.

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.