[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Shri. Devaki vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Central ... on 28 November, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49682
WP No. 29814 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.29814 OF 2025 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. DEVAKI
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE BALADKA RAMA NAIK KOTEKAR,
NO.4-94B, GANESH PRASAD HOUSE,
SOMESHWAR TEMPLE ROAD, SOMESHWAR,
MANGALURU - 575 022.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARYAMAN GHULATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
AND CENTRAL TAX (GST)
MANGALURU EAST DIVISION,
C.R.BUILDING, ATTAVAR,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
Digitally 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX
signed by (PREVENTIVE), 6TH FLOOR,
CHANDANA TRADE CENTRE, BLUNTS HOSTEL ROAD,
BM MANGALURU - 575 003.
Location: ...RESPONDENTS
High Court (BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE)
of Karnataka THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND TO QUASH CALLING FOR RECORDS
IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN ORIGINAL BEARING SL.NO.MLR-CGST-000-
ED-AC-PG-008-2024-25 AND WITH DIN NO.20250257000000444B8C DATED
04.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
AGAINST THE DECEASED FATHER OF THE PETITIONER AND QUASH
THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND NON-EST IN LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49682
WP No. 29814 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
" (i) To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the
records and to quash the impugned Order in Original baring
Sl.No.MLR-CGST-000-ED-AC-PG-008-2024-25 and with DIN
No.20250257000000444B8C dated 04.01.2025 (Annexure-A)
issued by the First Respondent against the deceased father of
the petitioner and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and non-
est in law.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the First
and Second Respondents to issue formal notice to the
petitioner and other legal heirs of the Late Shri. Baladka Rama
Naik Kotekar, proprietor of M/s. Ganesh Prasad Tours and
Travels before any order of adjudication is issued which would
come to be enforced against the estate of the deceased
Shri.Baladka Rama Naik Kotekar.
(iii) To award costs of and incidental to this Writ
Petition be paid by the respondents;
(iv) To issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) or any
other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in
facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of
justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents - revenue and perused the material on
record.
NC: 2025:KHC:49682
HC-KAR
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the
petitioner - Smt. Devaki is the widow of late Baladka Rama Naik
Kotekar, who said to have expired on 06.01.2024 leaving behind
the petitioner, who succeed to his estate as his heir and legal
representative. The petitioner having filed returns before the
respondents, the respondents proceeded to initiate the impugned
proceedings and passed the impugned order at Annexure-A dated
04.01.2025 as against the petitioner's husband late Baladka Rama
Naik Kotekar and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way
of the present petition interalia contending that the impugned
proceedings, orders, notices etc., were passed against her
deceased husband are illegal, void, invalid, non est and void ab-
initio in view of the following judgments of this Court and other
Courts;
(i) Sri. Late Someshwar Rao Chilukuri vs. Income
Tax Officer - W.P.No.28677/2024 Dated 09.01.2025;
(ii) Mrs.Vanitha Gopal Shetty vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income - tax, Circle 26(1), Mumbai -
W.P.No.19840/2019 dated 05.07.2021;
(iii) Urmila Saxena vs. Central Board of Direct
Taxes - (2024) 159 taxmann.com 6 (Madhya Pradesh);
NC: 2025:KHC:49682
HC-KAR
(iv) Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle (16(2), Mumbai -
(2019) 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay).
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents -
revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the
same is liable to be dismissed.
5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for
petitioner, the petitioner's husband - the original assessee Baladka
Rama Naik Kotekar having expired on 06.01.2024, the impugned
proceedings, orders passed as against the late husband of the
petitioner are clearly illegal, void, invalid, non est and void ab- initio
as held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and the recent
judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra.
6. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-A dated 04.01.2025
passed by the 1st respondent is hereby set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:49682
HC-KAR
(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to
initiate appropriate action against the petitioner subject to all just
exceptions and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
