IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.2581 OF 2018 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.2632 OF 2018 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COMMERCIAL TAXES, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (SOUTH ZONE), 36, KORAMANGALA, NGV HOUSING COMPLEX, RAJENDRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 047.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) AND:
SRI RAGHAVENDRA TRADERS REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETRIX, MRS. S. SUDHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, VALAPPADY 633115, SALEM, TAMIL NADU.
... RESPONDENT THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/04/2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NOS.13839 OF 2018 AND 13941 OF 2018 (T-RES), INSOFAR AS IT DIRECTS RELEASE OF THE DETAINED GOODS VEHICLE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN RELAXED CONDITIONS.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.13839 of 2018 and 13941 of 2018 partly allowing the writ petitions and directing the 2nd respondent therein to release the vehicle/conveyance along with the goods forthwith subject to the petitioner furnishing the bank guarantee of Rs.9,23,650/- along with deposit of Rs.1,08,026/-, the State is in appeals.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the order of the learned single Judge is opposed to law. He further pleads that the said order is being used by similarly placed persons for obtaining similar orders. Hence, these appeals.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The vehicle is released by the order of the learned Single Judge on payment of Rs.1,08,026/- and furnishing bank guarantee of Rs.9,23,650/-. The said amount is not a final determination of the tax due. It is subject to the orders of the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge having exercised the discretion, we find no grounds to interfere with the same. However, we wish to clarify that the said order is only applicable so far as the instant writ petitioners are concerned. Similarly situated persons cannot take benefit of the said order. Their case would have to be respectively considered on their individual merits and not based on this order.
The appeals are disposed off accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-