2024(11)LCX0430

Karnataka High Court

Vaishan Traders IV

Versus

Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

WRIT PETITION NO. 106841 OF 2024 decided on 20-11-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
 

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT PETITION NO.106841 OF 2024 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S VAISHAN TRADERS IV,
TARIHAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, TARIHAL, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD – 580 026,
GSTIN 29AWRPS3124Q1Z
REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR,
LALITH S/O. PRAKASH SAPARE, AGED 47 YEARS.
                                                                                                …PETITIONER

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
(ENFORCEMENT 1), LGSTO 320, 2ND FLOOR,
CTD BUILDING, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 025.

2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
ENFORCEMENT 1, LGSTO 330,
2ND FLOOR, CTD BUILDING, NAVANAGAR,
HUBBALI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 025.

3. COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
(ENFORCEMENT), DHARWAD DIVISION,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 025.
                                                                                …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12-11-2024 BEARING NO. DCCT(ENF-1)/HBL/INS-78/2023-24, ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, ORDER OF SEIZURE MARKED AT ANNEXURE-B AND THE SUMMON DATED 6-2-2024 BEARING NO. DCCT(ENF-1)/HBL/INS-78/2023-24/B-, ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT MARKED AT ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)

The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

a) To issue writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12-11-2024 bearing No.DCCT(Enf-1)/HBL/INS78/2023-24, issued by first respondent marked at Annexure-A, Order of Seizure marked at Annexure B and the summon dated 6-2-2024 bearing No.DCCT(Enf-1)/HBL/INS-78/2023-24/b-, issued by first respondent marked at Annexure-D in the interest of justice.

b) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

2. It is forthcoming that pursuant to a search conducted under Section 67(2) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 , an order of seizure dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-B) was issued as also a mahazar dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-C) was drawn and summons dated 06.02.2024 (Annexure-D) was also issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, a communication dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure-A) has been issued where under the petitioner has been notified of the discrepancies that have been noticed by the official respondents upon verification of the documents produced by the petitioner consequent to the seizure conducted by the official respondents. Vide the said communication dated 12.11.2024 (Annexure-A), after the discrepancies as noticed by the official respondents have been set out, the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and was required to appear on 22.11.2024 at 11.00 a.m. with the documents.

3. It is vehement contention of the learned counsel Sri. Vishwanath Hegade appearing for the petitioner that the procedure under Section 64(2) of the KGST Act has been undertaken without section 67(1) of the KGST Act having been complied and hence, it is sought to be contended that the action initiated by the official respondents consequent thereto is without authority of law.

4. Per contra, the learned AGA Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath appearing for the official respondents justifies the action taken by the official respondents and further contends that the communication dated 12.11.2024 is merely a notice affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to appear and no hardship would be caused to the petitioner if he appears before the official respondents pursuant to the said communication dated 12.11.2024.

5. Having heard the contentions of both the learned counsels and having perused the writ petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the indulgence as requested by the petitioner is not required to be granted since vide communication dated 12.11.2024 the petitioner has merely been afforded an opportunity of hearing after the official respondents have set out the discrepancies as noticed by them. Hence, it is open to the petitioner to respond to the discrepancies as notified in the communication dated 12.11.2024. While responding to the same, it is open to the petitioner to take all contentions permissible under law including the contentions with regard to Section 67(1) of the KGST Act that has been urged in the present writ petition.

6. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed off.

Sd/-        
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE