SHIVA MINES AND MINERALS v. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF
WP/30830/2024 · 2025-10-29
S R Krishna Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 83013 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 83013 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43178 WP No. 30830 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 30830 OF 2024 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
SHIVA MINES AND MINERALS, REP. BY SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, SHRI HITESH SHESHMAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT ROOM NO. 2023, CHAMUNDA JEWEL, YESHWANT NAGAR, NEAR GANESH TEMPLE, TEEN DONGRI, GOREGAON WEST MUMBAI-400 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-I), VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN, DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, P.B. ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 006. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JYOTI M MARADI, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER BEARING NO.287309705.01 DATED 18.04.2015 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43178 WP No. 30830 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
1. In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"Wherefore it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the impugned order bearing No.287309705.01 dated 18.04.2015 (Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent;
(b) Issue directions to the Ld. Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete to set aside the Criminal Misc. Petition No. 58/2019 filed by the Respondent (Annexure-E);
(c) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent and perused the material on record.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reassessment notice dated 17.03.2015 issued by respondent was not received by the petitioner who had shifted his business from Hospete to Mumbai and respondent had proceeded to pass the impugned exparte re-assessment order dated 18.04.2015, followed by the impugned notices, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43178 WP No. 30830 of 2024
4. It is submitted that inability and omission on the part of the petitioner to submit a reply to the reassessment notice was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause and if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance law, leaving open all contentions, the petitioner would submit the reply and contest the proceedings.
5. Submission is placed on record.
6. In view of the afore said submission, the impugned order passed by the respondent deserves to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law, subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to the Karnataka High court Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru.
7. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the Karnataka High Court Legal
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43178 WP No. 30830 of 2024
Services Authority, Bengaluru, within a period of six weeks from today. (ii) The impugned
order at Annexure-A dated 18.04.2015 bearing No.287309705.01 passed by the respondent is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent on 03.12.2025 without awaiting further notice from the respondent failing which the present order shall stand recalled automatically, without further reference to the Bench and without further orders. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, responses, pleadings, documents etc., which shall be considered by the respondent, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, hear him and proceed further, in accordance with law.
Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE tsn*/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34