B S BURRAQ ALUMIN ALLOYS vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/34650/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01074036202429 October 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR3 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that under the circumstances, where assessment orders and penalty orders had already been passed against the petitioner, nothing further survived for consideration in the present writ petition. The Court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law. This includes the right to challenge the penalty orders, assessment orders, and notices in accordance with the law. The Court also reserved liberty for the petitioner to approach the High Court subsequently if the occasion arose. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition with these reservations of liberty.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, B S Burraq Aluminium Alloys, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged a notice dated 13/12/2024 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner sought to quash this recovery notice and sought an interim order to stay recovery actions. The Revenue, represented by learned counsel, filed a memo on 20.12.2024, enclosing copies of penalty orders passed against the petitioner. These penalty orders indicated that assessment orders had already been passed against the petitioner. The Court noted that under these circumstances, nothing further survived for consideration in the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should quash the recovery notice dated 13/12/2024 issued by the Tax Recovery Officer, and grant an interim stay on recovery actions, in light of the fact that assessment and penalty orders have already been passed against the petitioner? The Assessee (Petitioner) argued for the quashing of the recovery notice and a stay on recovery actions, seeking relief in the interest of justice and equity. The Revenue (Respondents) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, by filing a memo indicating that assessment and penalty orders had been passed, the Revenue implicitly contended that the recovery action was a consequence of these prior orders and therefore valid.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43291 WP No. 34650 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34650 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. B S BURRAQ ALUMIN ALLOYS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, NO.19/1 CHINNASWAMY MUDALIAR ROAD, TASKER TOWN , BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PARTNER, MR. MOHAMMED UMER PASHA, S/O GULAB PASHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. OM KUMAR R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), CR BUILDING 3RD FLOOR , QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (1) (1) CR BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 3. THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE AND SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43291 WP No. 34650 of 2024

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 13/12/2024 BEARING DIN AND DOCUMENT NO.ITBA/RCV/S/301/2024-25/1071185251 (1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-'C', IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO, STAY THE RECOVERY ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE DATED 13/12/2024 BEARING DIN AND DOCUMENT NO.ITBA/RCV/S/301/2024-24/1071185251(1) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-'C', IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief: "Wherefore, the petitioner hereby most respectfully submits and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the Notice dated 13/12/2024 bearing DIN & Document No:ITBA/RCV/S/301/2024-25/1071185251(1) issued by the respondent No.3 as per Annexure-'C', in the interest of justice and equity."

Learned counsel for the respondent - Revenue filed a memo dated 20.12.2024 enclosing the copies of penalty orders passed against the petitioner, which in turn indicate that assessment orders have already been passed against the petitioner.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43291 WP No. 34650 of 2024

Under these circumstances, nothing further survives for consideration in the present petition and the same is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including challenging the penalty orders, assessment orders, notices, etc., in accordance with law.

Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach this Court subsequently if the occasion so arises

Subject to the aforesaid directions and reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner, petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BSV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →