SRI MAHADEVAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA BHEEMAKKANAVAR vs THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAAT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
WRIT APPEAL NO.100413 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O. HANUMANTAPPA BHEEMAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CROSS NO.23A, VIDYAGIRI,
OPP. TO AKKIMARADII PETROL PUMP,
BAGALKOT - 587 102.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHARATH P. HANAMARADDI,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER
OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU ZONE,
RD
3 FLOOR, ANNEXE BUILDING,
CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,
QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA – 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
GTST AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
NO.71, CLUB ROAD,
BELAGAVI – 590001.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST,
AFZALPUR TAKKE, NEAR FIRE STATION,
VIJAYAPUR – 568102.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL
TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE,
CGST – 0405, BAGALKOT RANGE,
GST BHAVAN, BESIDE SHREE AMBA
BHAVANI TEMPLE, JAIL ROAD, NAVANAGAR,
BAGALKOTE – 587103.
5. SMT. MADHUMATI
W/O. MAHADEVAPPA KARIMATTIHALLI @
BHIMAKKANAVAR,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS &HOUSEL HOLD WORK,
R/O: VIDHAGIRI, BAGALKOT – 587101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GIRISH S. HULMANI,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE TOP
NOTED WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.102663/2026
DATED 15-06-2026 IN ENTIRETY IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA )
The appellant is before the Court, calling in question the
order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.102663 of
2026 dated 15.06.2026.
2. Heard Shri Sharath P. Hanamaraddi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant; Shri Girish S. Hulmani, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4; and Shri Mallikarjunswamy B.
Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The appellant and respondent No.5 are husband and wife.
A property measuring 1 acre in Survey No.135/B, situated at
APMC, was purchased by respondent No.5, the wife, under a
registered sale deed dated 17.06.2008, and a building was
constructed thereafter on the subject property. A hotel business
is being run in the name and style of “Haripriya International
Lodging Boarding” and a restaurant attached to it.
4. All was well when the hotel business commenced
between the husband and wife. However, the relationship
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
between the two appears to have floundered. The floundering of
the relationship led to a communication by the wife to the
authorities stating that she had not given consent to the
registration authorities to generate a registration number in
favour of the appellant. This led to the cancellation of the GST
registration. Not only for the said reason, but also on manifold
grounds, the registration in favour of the appellant stood
cancelled.
5. The appellant questioned the cancellation of the GST
registration before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.102663 of 2026 by seeking the following prayer:
“This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, praying to a. issue a writ
in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
endorsement dated 12.02.2026 issued by respondent
No.4 bearing No. GSTIN/ UIN. 29ABWPH8896A1ZW vide
Annexure-F, in the interest of justice and equity; b. issue
a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No.4 to consider the representation vide
Annexure-H dated 21.03.2026 bearing GSTIN NO. GSTIN/
UIN. 29ABWPH8896A1ZW in the interest of justice and
equity; and c. grant such other and further reliefs as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, including costs of this petition,
in the interest of justice and equity.”
The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the said
challenge on the score that the appellant had an alternative,
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
statutory and efficacious remedy under Section 107 of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the Act’ for short)
and relegated the appellant to the appellate authority. It is this
order that has driven the appellant to this Court in the subject
appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the appellate remedy, though
statutory, is not efficacious in the peculiar facts of the case and
that this Court has to interfere with the matter, as the original
authority had cancelled the registration not once but twice and it
is a mala fide action on the part of the authority. The learned
counsel, though, would admit that no appeal has been preferred
before the appellate authority at any point in time by invoking
Section 107 of the Act.
7. The learned counsel, Shri Girish Hulmani, appearing
for the respondents, would submit that the submissions or
contentions that the appellant is now wanting to project before
this Court are in the realm of seriously disputed questions of
fact. In that light, the jurisdiction would lie before the appellate
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
authority and not with this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions and the contra submissions made by the learned
counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The issue is whether the order of the learned Single
Judge would warrant interference or otherwise.The learned
Single Judge, on noticing the entire facts, submissions and
contentions, has relegated the appellant to the appellate
authority to file a statutory appeal as obtaining under Section
107 of the Act and has also made it clear that the appellate
authority would consider the entire spectrum of facts.
10. We do not wish to add anything more than what the
learned Single Judge has observed, as the order is supported by
cogent and coherent reasons. The Apex Court in the case of
BIHAR INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.
1
SCOPE SALES PRIVATE LIMITED observes that interference
is not warranted in an intra-Court appeal, unless the impugned
order broods perversity and holds as follows:
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 112
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
“…. …. ….
13. We must also bear in mind the nature and
extent of jurisdiction that an intra-court appellate
Bench of a high court exercise. Such appellate
jurisdiction is conferred either under the Letters
Patent or by the relevant statutory provisions. It is
pertinent to note that both - Single Bench and
Division Bench - exercise the same jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, the
exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is
warranted only where the judgment or order under
challenge is demonstrably erroneous or suffers from
perversity. Such jurisdiction ought not to be invoked
merely because another view is possible on the same
set of facts, particularly where the view adopted by
the Single Judge is a plausible and reasonable one.
In other words, an intra-court appellate Bench ought
not to substitute its own view, merely because such
Bench considers its view to be better than the one
taken by the Single Bench; so long as the view taken
by the Single Bench is a plausible one, interference
should stay at a distance.
14. We find it profitable to refer to certain
precedents, relevant paragraphs wherefrom are reproduced
below:
14.1 In Baddula Lakshmaiah v. Sri Anjaneya Swami
15
Temple , it was held:
2. Mr Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants, inter alia contends that the Letters
Patent Bench of the High Court could not have
upset a finding of fact recorded by a learned Single
Judge on fresh reconciliation of the two documents,
arriving at different results than those arrived at
earlier by the two courts aforementioned. Though
the argument sounds attractive, it does not bear
scrutiny. Against the orders of the trial court, first
appeal lay before the High Court, both on facts as
well as law. It is the internal working of the High
Court which splits it into different ‘Benches’ and yet
the court remains one. A letters patent appeal, as
permitted under the Letters Patent, is normally an
intra-court appeal whereunder the Letters Patent
Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
own orders in exercise of the same jurisdiction as
was vested in the Single Bench. Such is not an
appeal against an order of a subordinate
court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High
Court exercises the powers of a Court of
Error. So understood, the appellate power
under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in
contrast to what is ordinarily understood in
procedural language. That apart the construction
of the aforementioned two documents involved, in
the very nature of their import, a mixed question of
law and fact, well within the powers of the Letters
Patent Bench to decide. The Bench was not
powerless in that regard.
(emphasis ours)
14.2 This Court in Narendra & Co. (P)
16
Ltd. v. Workmen noted that:
5. … Be that as it may, in an intra-court
appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the
Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the
finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall
not disturb the same. Merely because another
view or a better view is possible, there should
be no interference with or disturbance of the
order passed by the Single Judge, unless both
sides agree for a fairer approach on relief.
14.3 On whether a remand could be ordered in
exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, this Court
in Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service
17
Commission expressed reservations in the following
words:
3. We have very serious reservations
whether the Division Bench in an intra-court
appeal could have remitted a writ petition in
the matter of moulding the relief. It is the
exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The learned Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench exercised the same
jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to
the litigants, another tier of screening by the
Division Bench is provided in terms of the
power of the High Court but that does not
mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding,
the Division Bench was called upon, in the
intra-court appeal, primarily and mostly to
consider the correctness or otherwise of the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs
to consider the appeal(s) on merits by
deciding on the correctness of the judgment
of the learned Single Judge, instead of
remitting the matter to the learned Single
Judge.
18
14.4 In AAI v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee , while
referring to its decision in Narendra (supra), this Court
observed as follows:
41. The position is, thus, settled that in an
intra-court writ appeal, the appellate court
must restrain itself and the interference into
the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge is permissible only if the judgment of
the learned Single Judge is perverse or
suffers from an error apparent in law.
However, the Division Bench, in the present
case, failed to record any such finding and
rather, proceeded to delve into extensive
reappreciation of evidence to overturn the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
(emphasis ours)
15. Bearing in mind the larger public interest that
was involved coupled with the fact that the plot of land in
question was sought to be reserved for establishment of an
educational institution, we are of the firm opinion that
dismissal of the writ petition was an available option for the
Single Judge. The view taken by the Division Bench that
BIADA lacked the authority to cancel the allotment
though prima facie may appear to be appealing, yet, the
same is debatable.
15.1 Applying the principles governing the exercise
of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, as laid down in the
aforesaid precedents, to the facts of the present case, we
observe that judicial discipline demanded due
deference to the exercise of discretion by the court of
first instance, particularly when such discretion was
exercised on relevant considerations. The Single
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
Judge having refused exercise of discretion on a
ground which, in our opinion, is valid, the Division
Bench ought to have been loath to allow the writ
petition, and that too in exercise of its intra-court
appellate jurisdiction. The judgment and order of the
Single Judge was far from being wholly incorrect or
perverse.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In that light, this being an intra-court appeal, and the order of
the learned Single Judge not suffering from any perversity, this
Court would not interfere as a matter of course, more so in the
light of the fact that the order relegates the appellant to file an
appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
11. All contentions that have been projected before us
are left open to the appellant to urge before the appellate
authority. In the event that an appeal is filed under Section 107
of the Act within the next 30 days, the appellate authority shall
consider the same on its merits and pass necessary orders in
accordance with law, without reference to delay. The appellate
authority shall take note of the time spent by the appellant, both
before the learned Single Judge and before us, and decide the
appeal on its merits and therefore without reference to delay.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16789-DB
WA No. 100413 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020113362026
12. It is needless to observe that, if the appeal is filed
within the aforesaid period of 30 days, the appellate authority
shall dispose of the same expeditiously.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands
disposed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE
VNP/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36