Karnataka High Court
The Assistant Commissioner Of ... vs M/S Eid Parry (India) Limited on 11 April, 2022
Bench: S.Sujatha, Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
W.A.No.205/2022 (T - RES)
BETWEEN :
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAXES
LGSTO-152, BMTC BUILDING
2ND FLOOR, YESHWANTHPUR,
BENGALURU-560022. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA.)
AND :
1. M/s EID PARRY (INDIA) LIMITED
NO.122, AJISHA, 1ST FLOOR
1ST MAIN ROAD, MLA LAYOUT
R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032
REP BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER.
2. THE UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL TAX
CGST NODAL OFFICR FOR IT
GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL MECHANISM
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
-2-
BENGALURU ZONE,
P.B.NO.5400, C.R.BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENTS
THIS W.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN W.P.No.21882/2021 (T-RES).
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.21882/2021 whereby the learned Single Judge has followed the division bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India vs. Asaid Paints Limited and others reported in (2021) 49 GSTL 256 and thereby permitted the respondent - assessee to file once again rectified TRAN-I Form electronically or manually within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
-3-
2. Learned AGA does not dispute that the controversy involved herein is no more res integra in view of the Co-ordinate bench decision of this Court in Asaid Paints Limited, referred to supra.
3. Having regard to the Co-ordinate bench decision of this Court referred to supra, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, more particularly when N' number of cases filed by the revenue in identical circumstances have been disposed of following the said ruling of the division bench referred to supra.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE PMR