M/S F K Industries vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Commercial Tax

Original PDF →
WP/25041/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01054334202527 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. TAHIR, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. K. HEMAKUMAR, AGA

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42600 WP No. 25041 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 25041 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S F. K. INDUSTRIES PARTNERSHIP FIRM SY NO.54, NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, NAGAVALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572 145 REPRESENTED BY 1. SRI AKBAR ALI KHAN, MANAGING PARTNER, 2. SMT REHANA PARVEEN, PARTNER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: ASST. COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX LGTO-175, VANIJYA TERIGE SANKEERNA, NEAR SUKRUTHA HOSPITAL, SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION, TUMKURU – 572 103 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. HEMAKUMAR, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DEMAND ACCT/LGSTO-175/TMK/ADJ-55/24-25, DATED 03/02/2025 AT ANNEXURE -A, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT IN WHICH IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE TAX DEMAND WAS RS. 3,35,412/-, THE INTEREST AMOUNT WAS RS. 3,82,034/- AND THE PENALTY WAS RS. 3,35,412/-, RESULTING IN A TOTAL DEMAND OF RS. 10,52,858/-, STATING THE PETITIONER HAD FRAUDULENTLY ACCESSED Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42600 WP No. 25041 of 2025 INPUT TAX CREDIT FROM NOVEMBER 2017 TO FEBRUARY 2018 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

“1. To issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned demand order ACCT/LGSTO-175/TMK/Adj-55/2024- 25, dated 03.02.2025 at ANNEXURE-A, passed by the Respondent in which it was determined that the tax demand was Rs.3,35,412/-, the interest amount was Rs.3,82,034/- and the penalty was Rs.3,35,412/-, resulting in a total demand of Rs.10,52,858/-, stating the petitioner had fraudulently accessed input tax credit from November 2017 to February 2018. 2. To direct the Respondent Assistant Commissioner to not to take any coercive steps in respect of the petitioner.

3.

Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent and perused the material on record. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42600

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may be disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/KGST Act, before the Appellate Authority within a period of six weeks from today. It is further submitted that before the Appellate Authority, the appellant would deposit 10% of the tax amount and the period between the date of filing the present petition i.e.,10.08.2025, till today, may be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of limitation and filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

4.

The said submission is placed on record.

5.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, in accordance with law. If such an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority within a period of six weeks from today and by depositing 10% of the tax amount in terms of the impugned order, the period from the date of filing the present petition i.e., 10.08.2025, till today, shall stand excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of computing period of limitation. It is further directed that HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42600 if the petitioner files an appeal within a period of six weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal on merits without reference to the period of limitation, which stands answered in favour of the petitioner by this order.

6.

Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0

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.