BharatTaxGST

Shree Marulasiddeshwara Trading Company vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Original PDF →
WP/101011/2024HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC02019220202323 September 2024Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI3 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. SHIVAPRABHU.S.HIREMATH., AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. SHIVARAJ.S.BALLOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4-5

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13555 WP No. 101011 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 101011 OF 2024 (T-RES) BETWEEN: SHREE MARULASIDDESHWARA TRADING COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SHASHIDHAR.S.DODDAMANI, AGED: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, NO. NEAR DYAMNAVVANA GUDI, BYDAGI, HAVERI-581 106, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENFORCEMENT-1), COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICE, NEAR GURU BHAVAN, RAJENDRA NAGAR, HAVERI-581 110. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX-1, QUEENS ROAD, VASANTH NAAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13555 WP No. 101011 of 2024 NORTH BLOCK, NEW-DELHI-110 001. 5. THE GST COUNCIL, THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU.S.HIREMATH., AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. SHIVARAJ.S.BALLOLI., ADVOCATE FOR R2, R4-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER Sri.H.R.Kambiyavar., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath., AGA for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri.Shivaraj S.Balloli., counsel for respondents 2, 4 and 5 have appeared in person.

2.

The petitioner has questioned the constitutional validity of Section 16(4) of CGST/ SGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 61 of KGST Rules as illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore, to be struck down by this Court. NC: 2024:KHC-D:13555 WP No. 101011 of 2024

3.

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

4.

Suffice it to note that the constitutional validity has been upheld by the various Courts following the due procedure of law laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, nothing survives for consideration in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner to take recourse under the law. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

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.