BharatTaxGST

Shri. Basagoud S/O Bhagavantguda Patil vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of

Original PDF →
WP/105853/2023HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC02012210202319 September 2024Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI3 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. SHIVAPRABHU.S.HIREMATH., AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. AVINASH.M.ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. GIRISH.S.HULAMANI., ADVOCATE FOR R4-R5

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13394 WP No. 105853 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 105853 OF 2023 (T-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. BASAGOUD S/O BHAGAVANTGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O: 01, AT POST: KAJIBILAGI, JAMKHANDI-587 330, DIST: BAGALKOT, GSTIN: 29BGWPP4868E1ZH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (LGSTO 430), JAMKHANDI-587 301, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4. THE GST COUNCIL, THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13394 WP No. 105853 of 2023 MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 5. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, NO. 1, QUEENS ROAD, VASANATH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU.S.HIREMATH., AGA FOR R1-R2; SRI. AVINASH.M.ANGADI., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. GIRISH.S.HULAMANI., ADVOCATE FOR R4-R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 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.H.R.Kambiyavar., counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Shivaprabhu S.Hiremath., AGA for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Girish S.Hulamani., counsel for respondents 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:13394 WP No. 105853 of 2023

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

TKN LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 33.1

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.