1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI WRIT PETITION Nos.18847-858 OF 2017 (T-RES) Between:
M/s. Srei Equipment Finance Ltd., Represented by its Associate Vice President, Sri.R. Phani Raja Kumar, Aged about 39 years, No.14, IInd Floor, Langford Avenue Building, Langford Garden, Lalbagh Road, Richmond circle, Bengaluru – 560 025.
…Petitioner (By Mr.K. Hemakumar for Mr. R.V. Prasad, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengalurur – 560 001.
2. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes In Karnataka, Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, Ist Main Road, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru – 560 009.
3. The Commercial Tax Officer (Audit – 1.3), DVO -1, TTMC, BMTC Building, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru – 560 022.
4. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – I, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru – 560 027.
5. The Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., IInd Floor, Express Building, No.1, Queen’s Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
… Respondents (Mr.T.K. Vedamurhty, AGA for R1 to R4; Mr. Unnikrishnan, Advocate for R5) **** These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to declare the limitation prescribed in sub-Section (7)(b) of Section 63 of the Act, that if the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal does not dispose of the appeals within 365 days from the date of the stay order, the order of stay granted by it shall stand vacated and that the Karnataka appellate Tribunal shall not make any further order staying proceedings of recovery of the other 70% of disputed tax and other amount, is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and therefore ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, etc.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
Mr.K. Hemakumar, O R D E R For Mr.R.V. Prasad, Advocate for Petitioner Mr.T.K.Vedamurthy, AGA for Respondents 1 to 4; Mr. Unnikrishnan, Advocate for Respondent No.5 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitions have become infructuous since the main appeal itself has been decided by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Authority.
2. The opposite counsel, Mr. T.K. Veda Murthy has no objection.
3. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*