M/S Sri Manju Electricals vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Manju Electricals, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated October 20, 2022, and a summary of the show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01, both issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Tumkur (R2). The petitioner also sought a direction to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (R3) to issue a circular under Section 168 of the KGST Act, 2017, in line with a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (R4). The petitioner argued that the impugned notices were illegal and untenable. During the pendency of the writ petition, a final order was passed. The petitioner's counsel submitted a memo stating this fact and requested the petition be disposed of with liberty to file fresh proceedings.

Held

The Court noted that the writ petition was filed challenging a show cause notice dated 20.10.2022. However, during the pendency of the petition, a final order had been passed. The petitioner's counsel, through a memo placed on record, submitted this fact and requested that the petition be disposed of with liberty to file fresh proceedings. The Court, considering this submission and subject to all just exceptions, disposed of the petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the show cause notice or the prayer for a direction to issue a circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 20.10.2022 and the summary of show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 20.10.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Tumkur, are illegal and untenable in law, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, is required to issue a circular under Section 168 of the KGST Act, 2017, in consonance with Board Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018, and direct KGST officers to follow the same, as prayed by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the notices issued by R2 were illegal and untenable. The petitioner also contended that R3 should issue a circular under Section 168 of the KGST Act, 2017, aligning with the circular issued by R4 (CBIC), and that KGST officers should be directed to follow it. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, accepted notice. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the illegality of the notices or the necessity of issuing the circular.