- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13003 WP No. 103839 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103839 OF 2022 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SKB TRADING COMPANY 4/49-4, STEEL PLANT MAIN ROAD, MARAMANGALATHUPATTI, SALEM, TAMIL NADU-636 030. 2. SRI. MAHESH (DRIVER), S/O. MAGAN BHAGHEL, AGE: 45 YEARS, H.NO. 623, MIG, SUKLIYA, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH. 3. SHRI RAM TRANSPORT (TRANSPORTER), FLEET OWNER AND TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS, MATHRUSHREE NILAYA, E171, 3RD CROSS, GOPALA GOWDA EXTN. SHIVAMOGGA-577 205. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ATUL K. ALUR, SMT. REEMA P.V AND SRI. N.P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECRETARY, Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13003 WP No. 103839 of 2022 GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES VANIJYA TEREGE KARYALAYA, KALIDASA ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS), DHARWAD DIVISION, COMMERCIAL TAX BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, NAVNAGAR, HUBLI-580 025. 5. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (ENFORCEMENT-I), COMMERCIAL TAX BUILDING, P.B. ROAD, NAVNAGAR, HUBLI-580 025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT 4 BEARING NO.APL/GST-19/2021-22/BNO.525, ORDER NO.GST- 202122041 DATED 26/11/2021 AT ANNEXURE-R DATED 26.04.2021 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.B) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT 5 BEARING NO.DCCT (ENF)-1/HBL/K-12/2020- 21/B-48/49/50/51/52, DATED 26/04/2021 AT ANNEXURE-L IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.C) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESP-1 TO CONSTITUTE THE TRIBUNAL AS PER SECTION 112 OF THE CGST/KGST ACT 2017.D) ISSUE WRIT OF DECLARATION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION, DECLARING THAT, THE RES-4 WAS NOT RIGHT IN EXCESING THE POWER U/S 130 OF THE CGST/KGST ACT. AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13003 WP No. 103839 of 2022 CONFISCATING THE VEHICLE AND THE MATERIAL.E) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DECLARING THAT, THE INVOICE VALUE ADOPTED IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 130 OF THE CGST/KGST ACT IS NOT TRUE AND CORRECT VALUE OF THE MATERIALS.F) TO DECLARE THAT, THE RESPONDENT-5 WAS NOT RIGHT IN ALLOWING THE IGST ACT PAID BY THE PETITIONERS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue Writ of Certiorari or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by respondent 4 bearing No.APL/GST-19/2021- 22/BNO.525, order No.GST-202122041 dated 26/11/2021 at Annexure-R dated 26.04.2021 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. b. Issue Writ of Certiorari or Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by respondent 5 bearing No.DCCT (Enf)-1/HBL/K- 12/2020-21/B-48/49/50/51/52, dated 26/04/2021 at Annexure-L in so far as the petitioner is concerned. c. Issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the resp-1 to constitute the Tribunal as per section 112 of the CGST/KGST Act 2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13003 WP No. 103839 of 2022 d. Issue Writ of Declaration or Writ in the nature of declaration, declaring that, the res-4 was not right in excesing the power u/s 130 of the CGST/KGST Act and confiscating the vehicle and the material. e. Issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring that, the invoice value adopted in the order passed u/s 130 of the CGST/KGST Act is not true and correct value of the materials. f. To declare that, the respondent-5 was not right in allowing the IGST Act paid by the petitioners. g. Issue any other Writ or directions deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner was constrained to approach this Court on account of the GST Tribunal not having commenced working. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner has already paid the entire tax and penalty amount even prior to the filing of the above petition. In that view of the matter, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 112(9) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13003 WP No. 103839 of 2022 KGST Act’, for short), inasmuch as 20% of the tax amount required to be paid in terms of Section 112(8)(a) of the KGST Act, has been paid by the petitioner. 4. In view of the said payment, the recovery proceedings for the balance amount are deemed to be stayed in terms of Section 112(9) of the KGST Act. 5. The Tribunal though notified is yet to be constituted and commence functioning, as and when the Tribunal is constituted and commences functioning, it would be for the petitioner to approach the Tribunal to seek appropriate reliefs within a period of 60 days of the commencement of working by the Tribunal. 6. In that view of the matter, the above petition is disposed of, providing benefit of Section 112(9) of the KGST Act to the petitioner, until 60 days after the commencement of the working of the GST Tribunal. Needless to say, in the event of the necessary appeal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13003 WP No. 103839 of 2022 not being filed within 60 days of the commencement of the working of the GST Tribunal, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 112(9) of the KGST Act. 7. Since the GST Tribunal has not been constituted, the time period which has been fixed under Section 112 of the KGST Act would stand extended by two months from the date of commencement of the working of the GST Tribunal. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT:PA List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12