Kamat Yatrinivas Pvt Ltd. vs. The Principal Commissioner
(Karnataka High Court, Karnataka)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Kamat Yatrinivas Pvt Ltd.
Respondent
The Principal Commissioner
Court
Karnataka High Court
State
Karnataka
Date
Dec 11, 2020
Order No.
WRIT PETITION NO. 13437/2020 (T/RES)
TR Citation
2020 (12) TR 3717
Related HSN Chapter/s
N/A
Related HSN Code
N/A

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition chiefly for the following reliefs:

a) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent not to take any coercive action against the petitioner and direct the respondent to recalculate the due amount payable by the petitioner, stated by the respondent as per Notice No.C.No.IV/06/123/2018 BW AEII/ 2388/2020 dated 13.03.2020 and No. C.No.IV/06/123/2018 BW AE-II/3840 dated 08.07.2020 as per Annexures-B and C.

b) Direct the Respondent to extend a period of one year to pay the due amount of ₹ 1,18,15,529/- payable by the petitioner to the Respondent in phased manner.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Form No. GST DRC – 01A is issued intimating the petitioner that he is due in a sum of ₹ 1,67,17,995/- to the Government towards GST charged for the taxable supplies rendered by him and collected from the Customers for the period June 2019 to January 2020. Thereafter summons under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short ‘the Act’) is issued on 24.2.2020 prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition with the prayers as aforesaid. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner is categorical in his submissions that the petitioner who has admitted the liability would pay the same if reasonable time is granted by the authorities.

3. Sri Jeevan J Neeralagi, learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the assertions in the objection statement filed on behalf of the respondents submits that the proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A is not concluded. In any event, for the recovery of the amount due, notice under Section 76 of the Act would have to be issued. It would always be open to the petitioner after the issuance of such notice, to seek indulgence before the authorities for necessary accommodation to pay the admitted liability.

As the petitioner is seeking only enlargement of time to pay the admitted tax liability, and it is undisputed that the notice for payment of admitted liability is yet to be issued, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate request with the authorities, who shall consider the same, in the light of the fact that the petitioner admits the liability strictly in accordance with law.

Please Wait
  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • kamat yatrinivas pvt ltd vs the principal commissioner karnataka high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096