Mr. Denduluri Venkatarama Seshadri Alias D V R Seshadri vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte Order-in-Original passed under the Finance Act, 1994, and a consequential recovery notice (Form GST DRC-13) issued to his bank. He contended that he had ceased providing taxable services from June 2016, became a full-time employee, and was not served with the Show Cause Notice, leading to an ex-parte order.
Held
The High Court quashed both the Order-in-Original and the recovery notice, restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was granted liberty to appear and file a response to the Show Cause Notice.
Key Issues
Whether an ex-parte adjudication order and consequential recovery notice should be quashed due to alleged non-service of the Show Cause Notice and the petitioner's claim of having ceased taxable services.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, Form GST DRC-13
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order-in- Original dated 29.09.2021 [Annexure-A] under the Finance Act, 1994 and the Notice in Form GST DRC- 13 [Annexure-B] addressed to his Banker, M/s. ICICI Bank Limited. The petitioner's case is that until June 2016 he was working with the Indian Institute of HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36136 CNR: KAHC010468782026
Management, Bengaluru while providing training and coaching services with Management Consultancy Services and therefore had obtained registration under the service tax regime, but effective from June 2016 he has wound up these services and he is a full-time employee with Indian School of Business, Gachibowli, Hyderabad and his GST registration is also cancelled. The impugned Adjudication Order is based on the input received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, and the proceedings are concluded ex parte after issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2020. Ms. Pallavi Sridhar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court will have to interfere because [a] the petitioner can demonstrate that from July 2016, being a full-time employee, he has not offered any services and the Income Tax Returns filed are for his salary, [b] the petitioner has not been served with the Show Cause Notice and therefore he has not filed a Reply, [c] this Court in HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36136 CNR: KAHC010468782026
similar circumstances has restored the proceedings for reconsideration. Ms. Pallavi Sridhar argues that a case is made out for interference with the Order dated 29.09.2021 and therefore there must be interference even with the communication in Form GST DRC-13 to the petitioner's Banker. Sri Aravind V Chavan, a learned standing counsel who accepts notice for the respondent, is heard. This Court, on a careful consideration of the circumstances as aforesaid, is also of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for interference quashing both Annexures - A and B for restoration of the proceedings with liberty to file response to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2020. Hence the following. ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36136 CNR: KAHC010468782026
[B] The impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.09.2021 [Annexure-A] of the first respondent and Notice in Form GST DRC-13 [Annexure-B] issued by the second respondent are quashed. [C] The proceedings are restored to the first respondent for reconsideration. [D] The petitioner shall appear before the first respondent on 17.09.2026 without further notice. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.