Yenkappa Hanamanthappa Bandiwaddar vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of

WP/107934/2023HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC02018809202330 August 2024Bench: JYOTI MULIMANI3 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The petitioner, Yenkappa Hanumanthappa Bandiwaddar, a civil work contractor, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in 2023. The petition challenges an unspecified order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, LGSTO-310, Dharwad, and other respondent authorities. The matter has been pending for approximately one year. The petitioner has repeatedly failed to comply with office objections raised by the court. Despite being granted multiple opportunities, including three weeks' time on March 15, 2024, and a further three weeks on August 8, 2024, to comply with these objections, the petitioner has not done so. The petition was listed for orders on August 30, 2024, for the third time due to non-compliance.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed for two primary reasons. Firstly, the petitioner was not represented when the matter was called, indicating a lack of diligence in prosecuting the case. The Court noted that the advocate must be present when the matter is listed and called out, and absence can affect the case. Secondly, the Court found that the petitioner had failed to comply with office objections despite being granted sufficient opportunities. The order sheet revealed that time was granted on multiple occasions, but the objections remained unaddressed. The petition, filed in 2023, had been pending for almost a year without compliance. The Court concluded that the petitioner had not respected the court's orders and was not diligent in pursuing the petition. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with office objections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution, considering the petitioner's repeated absence and lack of representation when the matter was called. 2. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-compliance with office objections, despite the court granting sufficient opportunities for rectification. Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment records that the petitioner was absent and not represented when the matter was called. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel was also noted as absent. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The court's decision appears to be based on the procedural history and the petitioner's non-compliance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12404 WP No. 107934 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 107934 OF 2023 (T-RES) BETWEEN: YENKAPPA HANAMANTHAPPA BANDIWADDAR, NO.16, TEGUR ROAD, HALETEGUR-580 011, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: CIVIL WORK CONTRACTOR, GSTIN:29AFFPB7859G1Z6. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.R.KAMBIYAVAR., ADVOCATE [ABSENT]) AND: 1. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO-310, D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD-580 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, 1, QUEENS RD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX GST, VANIJYA BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 5. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT, INTELLIGENCE AND SAMANAYA), Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12404 WP No. 107934 of 2023 GST, VANIJYA BHAVAN, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009. 6. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), REPT. BY CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS GST POLICY WING, NEW DELHI-110 008. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

When the matter is called, the petitioner is not represented. When the matter is listed and is called out, the advocate must be present. The absence may affect the case.

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed before Addl. Registrar (Judicial) on 15.03.2024, on that day, three weeks time was granted for compliance. Again the petition was listed before the Court on 08.08.2024, on that day, finally three weeks time was granted to comply with the office objections. Despite granting time, office objections are not complied with. NC: 2024:KHC-D:12404 WP No. 107934 of 2023

The petition is listed today for orders regarding non- compliance of office objections for the third time. A perusal of the entire order sheet reveals that despite giving sufficient opportunities, the office objections are not complied with. Furthermore, the petition is filed in the year 2023. Now we are in the month of August 2024. The petition is pending for almost one year. The petitioner has not respected the Court order. As already noted above, when the matter is called, the petitioner is not represented. It appears that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution and also for non-compliance of office objections. (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38

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.