IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.58172/2017 (T-RES) Between:
Sri Krishna Enterprises No.260, M.G. Road Near Mahalaxmi Temple Vijayapura-586 101 Represented by its Prop: Anilkumar R. Bagalkotkar Aged 61 Years (By Sri G.B. Yadav, Advocate) And:
1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Department of Finance Vidhana Soudha Bangalore-560 001 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes LVO-450, Afzalpur Takke Vijayapura-586 101 3. The Chief Manager Corporation Bank … Petitioner Hanamshetty Building Gurukul Road Vijayapura-586 101 (By Sri K.M. Ghate, AGA for R1 and R2; Notice to R3 served, but unrepresented) … Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 authority to consider the application Annexure-1-A filed under Karasamadhana Scheme vide Annexures-E & F dated 08.05.2017 and direct the respondent No.2 to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner as per the penalty order, pending consideration of application filed by the petitioner under Karasamadhana Scheme in Annexure-1-A dated 08.05.2017 vide Annexures-E & F to the writ petition.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, the court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner has sought for a direction to respondent No.2 – authority to consider the application at Annexure-1-A filed by him under Karasamadhana Scheme, 2017 (‘Scheme’ for short) vide Annexures-E & F to the writ petition dated 08.05.2017.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under the scheme. It is the contention of the petitioner that under the said scheme, application has been filed through online making e-payment. However, respondent No.2 without application of mind has recovered the penalty amount by issuing garnishee notice to the respondent No.3 – Banker.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has remitted 10% of the penalty amount and claimed waiver of 90% of the penalty amount as per the scheme announced by the State of Karnataka. It was argued that the recovery of the alleged penalty amount from the banker’s of the petitioner without considering the waiver application filed under the scheme is illegal and unjustifiable.
4. The learned counsel for the revenue would submit that no application in Annexure-A-1 and the challan in Form No.152 was submitted before the respondent No.2 to extend benefit of the scheme.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is ex facie apparent that respondent No.2 has failed to consider the application filed through online and the payment made through challan as per Form No.152. The request made by the petitioner to waive of the penalty in terms of the scheme has been rejected only on the ground that such application was not received in the office. In view of the printouts now made available before this Court in terms of Annexures-E & F, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to reconsider the matter in the light of the aforesaid documents.
6. The respondent No.2 shall examine the matter and take a decision in accordance with law in an expedite manner. If the petitioner is found to be entitled for the benefit of the scheme, the same shall be extended and the amount recovered from the petitioner in excess shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.
The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 10.10.2019 with all the documents to substantiate his contention that the application for waiver of penalty was made as prescribed under the scheme by paying the prescribed fees.
Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
Sd/- JUDGE BL