IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19th DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.130 OF 2016 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA "VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA" GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) MYSURU DIVISION SHESHADRI HOUSE DIWANS ROAD MYSURU-570 004.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-3), VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVANA MAIDAN ROAD MANGALURU - 575 001.
5. THE ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ENFORCEMENT), VIVEKANANDA 4TH CROSS ROAD, AJJARKKAD, UDUPI - 576 101.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT)-1 VANIJYA THERIGE BHAVAN MODINA ROAD, MANGALURU - 575 001.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
M/S. TECHNIP INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S TECHNIP KT INDIA LTD.,) C/O MRPL, KUTHETHUR, KATIPALLA, MANGALURU-575 030. REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSOCIATED VICE PRESIDENT MR. AJAY AGARWAL.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.44524 OF 2015 DATED 29/10/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT By the order dated 29.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.44524 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge, respondent No.4 therein namely, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, was directed to refund the amount in deposit belonging to the petitioner together with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It was further ordered that the said amount shall be recovered from the salary of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this appeal.
2. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the said amount along with interest having being paid, only that portion of the order directing the State to recover the amount from the salary of respondent No.4 has been challenged. Insofar as this submission is concerned, we are of the view that the appellants cannot be aggrieved by that portion of the order. The direction was issued to recover the said amount from the salary of respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge. He has not challenged the said order. He has accepted the same. Therefore, we find no ground to entertain the appeal. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader undertakes to comply with the order regarding recovery.
Pending applications stand rejected.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE SA