Karnataka High Court
Rahimansab S/O. Davalsab Doddamani vs The Assistant Commissioner Of on 3 November, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14892
WP No. 105915 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 105915 OF 2025 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
RAHIMANSAB
S/O. DAVALSAB DODDAMANI,
AGE. 51 YEARS,
R/O. OPP. GOVT. SCHOOL HIREBANNIGOL,
TQ. KUSHTAGI,
DIST. KOPPAL - 583 277.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H. R. KAMBIYAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES, LGSTO 510
KINNAL ROAD, KOPPAL - 583 231.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAXES AUDIT 1
Digitally signed by
VISHAL
II CROSS NEHARU COLONY,
NINGAPPA HOSAPETE - 583 203, DGSTO
PATTIHAL
Location: High DAVANGERE - 577 001.
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 3. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY REVENUE,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE GST WING,
EPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14892
WP No. 105915 of 2025
HC-KAR
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD, KOPPAL - 583 231.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2, R4 & R5;
SRI. M.B.KANAI, CGSC FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE NOTIFICATIONS AND THE
CIRCULAR INSTRUCTIONS THAT HAVE LED TO LEVY OF GST ON
THE AMOUNT OF ROYALTY SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING CIRCULAR
BEARING NO. 164/20.2021-GST DATED 6.10.2021 VIDE
ANNEXURE-D ISSUE BY RESPONDENT NO.3. ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH AN ADJUDICATING ORDER U/S. 73(9) OF THE KGST ACT
AND CGST ACT-2017 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2019-20,
BEARING NO. ACCT (AUDIT)/HPT/GST-ADJN/ORDER-73/2024-
25/T, DATED 29.08.2024, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE
ANNEXURE- H, INSOFOR AS PETITIONER FIRM IS CONCERNED.
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPLY DATED 03.06.2024 VIDE
ANNEXURE E AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14892
WP No. 105915 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following prayer:
I. Issue a Writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the Notifications and the circular
instructions that have led to levy of GST on the
amount of royalty specifically including circular
bearing no. 164/20.2021-gst dated 6.10.2021 vide
Annexure-D issue by respondent no.3.
II. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash an adjudicating Order U/s. 73(9)
of the KGST act and CGST act-2017 for the
financial year 2019-20, bearing no.
ACCT(AUDIT)/HPT/GST-ADJN/ORDER-73/2024-
25/T, dated 29.08.2024, passed by respondent
no.2 vide Annexure- H, insofor as petitioner firm is
concerned.
III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent
no.2 to consider the reply dated 03.06.2024 vide
Annexure E.
IV. Pass/issue any other writ or order as deemed fit by
this Hon'ble Court in the facts and of the case, to
meet the interest of justice and equity.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of Mineral Area Development
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14892
HC-KAR
Authority Vs. Steel Authority of India1, wherein the Apex
Court held as follows:
"E. Conclusion
26. The submission that MADA [Mineral Area
Development Authority v. SAIL, (2024) 10 SCC 1] should
be given prospective effect is rejected.
27. Bearing in mind the consequences that would
emanate from the past period, the following
conditionalities are directed to prevail:
27.1. While the States may levy or renew demands of
tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49 and 50 of List II of
the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in
the decision in MADA [Mineral Area Development
Authority v. SAIL, (2024) 10 SCC 1] the demand of tax
shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1-4-
2005;
27.2. The time for payment of the demand of tax shall be
staggered in instalments over a period of twelve years
commencing from 1-4-2026; and
27.3. The levy of interest and penalty on demands made
for the period before 25-7-2024 shall stand waived for all
the assessees."
3. The learned AGA would not dispute the position with
regard to the matter being covered qua royalty, but the
representation of the petitioner will have to be considered by the
appropriate Authority as is directed by the Apex Court.
4. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed, albeit
in part. The impugned Order-in-Original at Annexure-H stands
(2024) 10 SCC 257
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14892
HC-KAR
quashed and respondent No.2 is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner, qua royalty, bearing in mind the
observations made by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted
judgement, within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy
of the order.
Ordered accordingly.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
KGK/CT-ASC
