![]()
Case Summary: M/S. Bangalore Golf Club vs. Commercial Tax
Officer (Enforcement)-50 & Others
Court: High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 8050 of 2024 (T-RES)
Date of Judgement: June 5, 2024
Judge: Hon'ble
Mr. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Facts of the Case:
Petitioner:
M/S.
Bangalore Golf Club, represented by its Honorary Secretary, Sri. Vittal
Belandor
Respondents:
1.
Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement)-50, South Zone, Bengaluru
2.
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bengaluru
3.
Government of Karnataka, Department of Finance
4.
Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), South Zone,
Bengaluru
Petitioner's Submissions:
1. The
petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated December 29, 2023, issued
under Section 73(9) of the KGST Act by Respondent No. 1 for the tax periods
2017-18 and 2018-19, arguing it was barred by time, invalid, and passed without
authority of law.
2. The
petitioner claimed that the clubbing of financial years and passing of a common
order was impermissible.
3. The
petitioner argued that they were not granted an opportunity as required under
Section 75(4) of the KGST Act before adverse orders were passed.
Respondents' Submissions:
1. Represented
by Sri. Hema Kumar K., Advocate.
2. The
submissions made by the respondents were not detailed in the document.
Court's Judgement:
1. Quashing
of the Impugned Order:
· The court
noticed that a common order was passed for two financial years and that the
petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing as contemplated under
Section 75(4) of the KGST Act.
· The court
set aside the impugned order dated December 29, 2023, on the grounds that the
petitioner should be afforded an opportunity of hearing.
2. Remand
for Fresh Consideration:
· The matter
was remitted back to Respondent No. 1 for fresh consideration after providing
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as per Section 75(4) of the KGST
Act.
· The court
clarified that setting aside the impugned order did not amount to a finding on
the contention regarding the passing of a common order for two different
financial years.
3. Opportunity
for the Petitioner:
· The
petitioner was directed to appear before Respondent No. 1 on June 22, 2024,
without the need for further notice.
· The court
stated that the petitioner should not raise any contentions based on limitation
due to the remand.
4. Notifications
Annexures 'N' and 'P':
· The court
decided that the correctness of notifications at Annexures 'N' and 'P' did not
need to be addressed, as substantive relief was provided by setting aside the
order at Annexure 'H'.
Conclusion:
The writ
petition was disposed of with all contentions kept open, and the petitioner was
afforded an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the adjudicating authority.
Disclaimer: All the
Information is based on the notification, circular and order issued by the
Govt. authority and judgement delivered by the court or the
authority information is strictly for educational purposes and on the
basis of our best understanding of laws & not binding on anyone.
Click here
