MR K S PERIYASWAMY vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted the absence of the petitioner and the presence of the respondents' counsel. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mr. K.S. Periyaswamy, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, appearing party in person, was absent during the hearing.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the non-prosecution of the writ petition due to the petitioner's absence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.BILLAPPA
WRIT PETITION No.48949/2012 (LR)
BETWEEN:
MR K S PERIYASWAMY ADVOCATE S/O SHRI K S SWAMYAPPA AGED 59 YAERS NO.599, FIRST CROSS DOMLUR LAYOUT BANGALORE-560071.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MR K S PERIYASWAMY, PARTY IN PERSON, ABSENT)
AND
1.THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL REVENUE BENCH-COURT HALL NO.2 M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
2.THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE-560009.
3.THE TAHASILDHAR BANGALORE EAST
2 KRISHNA RAJA PURAM BANGALORE-560036.
4.MR M HUCHEGOWDA (IT-PAN NO AABPH7737A) S/O SHRI MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS SUUBHASH NAGAR B H ROAD NELAMANGALA-562123.
5.THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE NO. 13 (3) NO.59, HMT BHVAN, 6TH FLOOR BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR BANGALORE-560032.
... RESPONDENTS
(By SRI T.P.SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI K.SREEDHAR, ADV., FOR R4, SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV., FOR R5)
****** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ANN-D, ORDER DT.9.3.12, PASSED BY THE R1, IN THE REVENUE APPEAL NO.65/11 ON THE PETITIONER APPLICATION U/O XI, RULE 14 R/W SECTION 151.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3 J U D G M E NT
The learned AGA and the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 are present. Petitioner who is party in person is not present.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
SD/- JUDGE
More judgments on Section 227
- Sinder Pal S/O Late Sh. Ram Sarup vs Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container…W.P.(C)-3002/202116 Sept 2026
- Sri Tontadarya B S vs The Superintendent of PoliceWP/4538/202212 Dec 2022
- Erappa vs The Deputy CommissionerWP/9257/201416 Nov 2022
- Pralaksha Charitable Trust vs State of KarnatakaWP/16109/202212 Sept 2022
- Smt Promoda Devi Wadiyar vs Bangalore Development AuthorityWP/2170/20156 Jul 2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026