^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

NIRMITI KENDRA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
(Karnataka High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

M.G. UMA

Pet. Counsel

Anil Kumar B

Cherian Punnoose

Res. Counsel

P.n. Hatti

Petitioner / Applicant	NIRMITI KENDRA
Respondent	STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Court	Karnataka High Court
State	Karnataka
Date	Apr 23, 2024
Order No.	WRIT PETITION NO. 102299/2024(T-RES)
Citation	2024(4) TAXREPLY 9754
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER PER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 30.12.2023 produced as per Annexure-A passed by respondent No. 3. 2. Heard Sri Anilkumar B. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.N. Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has sought for exemption from payment of tax. The same was rejected by respondent No. 3 by passing the impugned order. The same is not a speaking order and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and others AIR 1999 SC 22 in support of....