BharatTaxGST

M/S Vanishree Constructions vs. The Addl Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Original PDF →
WP/10750/2021HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01017693202107 July 2021Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV3 pages
For Petitioner: Sri.Naveen, Advocate for Sri D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION No.10750/2021 (T – RES) BETWEEN: M/s Vanishree Constructions, A Partnership Firm Survey No.110, Tailagere Village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural-560101 Represented by its Partner Sri. K.P.Srinivas …Petitioner (By Sri.Naveen, Advocate for Sri D.R.Ravishankar, Advocate) AND: 1. The Addl. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement South Zone, III Floor, CTD Building, B Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560047 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Enforcement-I, South Zone, Bengaluru-560047 ...Respondents 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the notice issued by R- 2 U/S.67 dated 12.11.2020 which is produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition and etc. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the validity of a notice under Section 67 of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax and Central Goods and Services Tax, Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2.

Various legal contentions have been raised by placing reliance on the order of the Apex Court in W.P.No.827/2020, wherein the petitioner submits that there have been stay of demand for payment of service taxes on mining lease / royalty.

3.

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that insofar as the notice under Section 67 of the Act, the said proceedings have concluded as an inspection report has been sent to the adjudicatory authority after obtaining

3 necessary information from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the further proceedings is to be considered by the adjudicatory authority.

4.

In light of the said submission made, the petition is disposed of as not calling for any further interference.

All the contentions of the petitioner are kept open. JUDGE

GJM

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.