- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6170 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100040 OF 2018 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRIKANT S/O. DODDAPPA HARIHAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MAIN ROAD, NEAR MAHANTESH MATH, ILKAL, TAL. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AUDIT AND RECOVERY, BAGALKOTE. 2. SMT. SHEKHAVVA W/O. LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR CHENNI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, VIJAYA MINES AND MINERALS, OPPOSITE WATER TANK, AT ILKAL-587125, TAL. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.09 15:58:01 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6170 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2018 3. SHRI MUTTANNA @ MALLIKARJUN S/O. CHANDRASHEKHAR CHENNI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, VIJAYA MINES AND MINERALS, OPPOSITE WATER TANK, AT ILKAL-587125, TAL. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 4. SMT. RAKSHITA W/O. ARUN BELLAD, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, VIJAYA MINES AND MINERALS, OPPOSITE WATER TANK, AT ILKAL-587125, TAL. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE. …RESPONDENTS (R1-NOTICE SERVED; SRI. N.M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4; V/O DATED 30.10.2018 NOTICE ON R3 IS ACCEPTED) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(4) OF KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT 1957 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUNGUND IN CRL.MISC.NO.130 OF 2012 IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6170 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2018 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Shriharsh A Neelopant, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel Sri.N.M.Patil on behalf of Sri.J.S.Shetti, for respondents. 2. Order under revision is only issuance of fine levy warrant. Contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner are that he ceased to be the partner much earlier to the alleged liability. 3. If it so, he can always bring it to the notice to the trial Court by filing the necessary application. Thereafter, trial Court can take appropriate action. 4. In this regard revision petitioner files a memo. Memo reads as follows: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6170 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2018 “The Advocate for petitioner respectfully submits as under: That as against impugned order revision will not lie. The petitioner intends to withdraw the petition with a liberty to file objection to herein application. Wherefore this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file objections to application in the ends of justice.” 5. Reserving the liberty for revision petitioner to urge the available defence before the trial Court and noticing the fact that the order under revision is an interlocutory order, revision petition stands dismissed. 6. However, respondent shall not take any coercive steps till 28.04.2025. 7. Revision petitioner shall appear before the trial Court by preponing the case to any day earlier to 28.04.2025 and file necessary objections to the fine levy - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6170 CRL.RP No. 100040 of 2018 warrant. Thereafter, trial Court is directed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48