IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.1522 OF 2019 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
NATIONAL PLY WOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED NO.45, INDUSTRIAL HOUSE RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU-560001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PIYUSH PERIWAL) (BY SHRI ATUL K. ALUR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE SECETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001 ... APPELLANT 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ROOM NO.101, 1ST FLOOR VTK 1, KALIDAS ROAD GANDHINAGAR BENGALORE-560009 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ROOM NO.400, 4TH FLOOR VTK I , KALIDAS ROAD GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE-560009.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT & RECOVERY)-1.8 DVO-1, BMTC BUS STAND TTMC, YESWANTHPUR BENGALURU-560022 (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, HCGP) ---
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.13509/2019 (T-RES) AND GRANT ALL PRAYERS MADE IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. The first prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the endorsement dated 10th October 2018 made on the application dated 1st August 2018 made by the appellant. The prayer in the application dated 1st August 2018 made by the appellant was that a direction be issued to the Assessing Authority to consider the application dated 11th June 2009 made by the appellant and to accept the declarations.
3. A perusal of the endorsement dated 10th October 2018 shows that the prayer made in the application 1st August 2018 has not been dealt with at all.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on instructions, states that the application dated 11th June 2009 will be decided in accordance with law. We accept the said statement.
5. The first prayer in the writ petition was for setting aside the endorsement dated 10th October 2018. The second prayer was for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the fourth respondent to consider the representation dated 11th June 2009 and the third prayer was a consequential prayer to accept the declarations.
6. The endorsement dated 10th October 2018 does not deal with the prayer made in the application dated 1st August 2018 for consideration of the application dated 11th June 2009. Now that the respondents have accepted that the application dated 11th June 2009 will be decided in accordance with law, no order interfering with the impugned order is required to be passed as the statement made by the learned High Court Government Pleader virtually accepts the relevant prayer made in the writ petition. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
(i) We direct the concerned authority to decide the application dated 11th June 2009 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible in any event within a period of one month from today;
(ii) The order be communicated to the appellant.
(iii) Subject to what is directed above, the appeal is disposed of.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB