M/S Nl Tile Art PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Held
The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. The submission was placed on record. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not delve into the merits of the penalty imposed or the grounds for seeking a stay on its recovery. Therefore, no findings were made on the substantive issues raised by the petitioner's prayer. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided as the matter was concluded by the withdrawal.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. NL Tile Art Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enf.)-29, South Zone, Bengaluru. The order, dated June 25, 2019, imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,07,052 under the KGST Act and Rs. 30,07,052 under the CGST Act for the tax periods July 2018 to February 2019. The petitioner sought a direction to prevent the recovery of this disputed penalty until the disposal of their appeal filed before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru, bearing Appeal No. AP/126/19-20. The respondents included the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Karnataka, the Commercial Tax Officer, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, and the Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru GST Commissionerate.
Key Issues
1. Whether the recovery of the disputed penalty of Rs. 30,07,052 under the KGST Act and Rs. 30,07,052 under the CGST Act, imposed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enf.)-29, South Zone, Bengaluru, pursuant to an order dated 25.06.2019 under Section 122(1)(xv) of the KGST Act and CGST Act for the tax periods July 2018 to February 2019, should be stayed until the disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-4, Bengaluru. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought a direction to the respondent authorities not to recover the disputed penalty amount pending the appeal. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the petitioner regarding the merits of the penalty or the grounds for stay. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondents.
Sections Cited
Section 122(1)(xv)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.48609 OF 2019 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. NL TILE ART PVT. LTD., SY.NO.21/1A, BETTADASANAPURA BEGUR-2, BENGALURU-560 068 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI B.S.NAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O SRI SRINIVAS BIGVARA NAGAPPA …PETITIONER (BY SRI M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL
TAXES, KARNATAKA
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA
GANDHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 009
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (ENF.)-29
SOUTH ZONE, V.T.K-2
RAJENDRANAGAR, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 047
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT
TAXES AND CUSTOMS
ROOM NO.227-B
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
BENGALURU GST COMMISSIONERATE
NO.59, HMT BHAWAN
GROUND FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD
BENGALURU-560 032
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HEMAKUMAR, AGA)
2 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 NOT TO RECOVER THE DISPUTED PENALTY OF RS.30,07,052 UNDER KGST ACT AND RS.30,07,052 UND
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.