High Court of Karnataka · Procedural and interlocutory orders
M/s. G.K. Corporation Private Limited v. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3 & Ors.
WP No. 9451 of 2021 (T-IT) ·
Demand-deposit challenge withdrawn with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in law.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
G. K. Corporation challenged the Principal Commissioner’s order dated 4 December 2020, sought waiver of deposit of disputed demand and challenged the ITO’s stay order dated 26 October 2020. A memo dated 11 November 2025 sought withdrawal with liberty to avail an appropriate remedy in law.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
The Court acted on the memo without deciding the deposit condition or the legality of the challenged orders.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The memo was recorded and the writ dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as requested.
4. OUTCOME
The writ ended; an appropriate remedy available in law was preserved. No waiver of deposit, stay or merits relief was ordered.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.
Liberty is limited to a remedy available in law
The Court expressly preserved an appropriate remedy, but did not identify a forum, admit a future challenge or waive procedural conditions. A later filing would still need to establish its own availability; this order is not a blanket extension of limitation.
The deposit dispute remains undecided here
The prayer sought waiver and attacked two administrative orders. Withdrawal did not grant that waiver or determine the correct percentage. The operative order must therefore be distinguished from the substantive relief described on the petition’s cover page.
Preserve the sequence of orders
The 26 October 2020 stay order and 4 December 2020 Principal Commissioner’s order are the administrative acts identified. The November 2025 memo explains how the writ ended, not how those acts were resolved. Their operative status requires the underlying record or later proceedings.
Source and verification
3-page official High Court of Karnataka judgment PDF (20251112_KAHC010081582021.pdf, 121,701 bytes).
Original PDF: 3 pages · SHA-256: 4079ffc9b2ad9628a2685732bef0a5cc347fbdd919dbde65abe7ac525d799b12
All 3 original pages read and visually inspected; all five panels audited.
The source records procedural withdrawal, not a substantive construction of the Income-tax Act. No current operation of a cited policy or later remedy is verified.
Subsequent treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Expert Comments are editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.