M/S Sri Om Traders vs. Commercial Tax Officer

WP/5300/2020HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01011117202017 March 2020Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
For Petitioner: Sri.K.J.Kamath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.T.K.Vedamurthy, AGA
AI SummaryRemanded

Held

The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Instead, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they would avail of the grievance redressal mechanism provided under Section 64(2) of the KGST Act, 2017, concerning the order at Annexure-A. The petitioner also reserved liberty to raise the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/KGST Act in appropriate proceedings. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate redressal as against the order at Annexure-A as per law. The time spent by the Court in hearing the matter was to be taken note of by the authority while considering any delay in challenging the impugned order. No specific finding was given on the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) or the merits of the order at Annexure-A.

Facts

M/s. Sri Om Traders, the petitioner, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/KGST Act. The petitioner also sought to challenge an order at Annexure-A, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement – 3), the respondent. The specific tax period and the amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the filing of the writ petition and its preliminary hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/KGST Act is unconstitutional and against the scheme of the CGST Act/KGST Act? The petitioner argued for the unconstitutionality of this provision. The respondent's arguments were not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the order at Annexure-A, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement – 3), is liable to be set aside or modified? The petitioner sought appropriate redressal against this order. The respondent's stance on this specific order was not detailed. The petitioner also sought to reserve liberty to raise the constitutional validity in appropriate proceedings.

Sections Cited

Section 16(2)(c), Section 64(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.5300/2020 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/s.Sri Om traders, Having its office at: GSKM Road, Panchavati Colony, Shivamogga – 577202. Represented by Proprietor. …Petitioner (By Sri.K.J.Kamath, Advocate) AND: Commercial Tax Officer, (Enforcement – 3) Vanijya Terige Bhavana, Gopala Gowda Extn., Shivamogga – 577205. ...Respondent (By Sri.T.K.Vedamurthy, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to declare Sec.16(2)(c) of the CGST Act/KGST Act to be unconstitutional and against the scheme of the CGST Act/KGST Act. 2 This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:

After hearing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would avail of the grievance redressal as provided under Section 64(2)

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.

See plans and prices

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.