M/S Voonik Technologies (P) LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was to be dismissed as withdrawn. This decision was based on a memo filed by the petitioner seeking withdrawal. The petitioner's stated reason for withdrawal was that the service tax demanded had been discharged by them in terms of the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019'. The Court accepted this submission and proceeded to dismiss the petition as withdrawn, without delving into the merits of the original challenge to the notices. No specific provisions of the GST Act or Finance Act were discussed in relation to the merits of the dispute, as the case was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Voonik Technologies (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging notices dated October 9, 2018, and November 14, 2018, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1). These notices pertained to the periods of October 2016 to March 2017 and April 2017 to June 2017. The petitioner sought to quash these notices. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a memo seeking to withdraw the writ petition. The reason for withdrawal was stated as the discharge of the demanded service tax liability by the petitioner under the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019'.
Key Issues
The primary issue before the Court was whether the writ petition should be permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner argued that they had discharged the service tax demand by opting for the 'Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019'. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against the withdrawal, as the petitioner had voluntarily chosen to settle the dispute under the aforementioned scheme. The Court had to decide whether to allow the withdrawal based on the petitioner's submission that the dispute had been resolved through the scheme.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.7782/2019 (T – RES)
BETWEEN
M/S VOONIK TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI MOHAMMED SUJAYATH ALI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.5/BC, 106, 5TH CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT 3RD BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 043. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI HEMAKUMAR K, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, NORTH GST DIVISION – VII, 4TH FLOOR, S.P.COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX NORTH GST DIVISION – VII, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 009. 2
CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, DELHI – 110 001. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI – 110 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI AMIT DESHPANDE FOR R1 TO R3 , ADVOCATE(VIDEO CONFERENCING), SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETI
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.