M/S Ramky Specialiyt Chemicals And Equipment vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order-in- Original dated 28.12.2022/29.12.2022 under the Finance Act, 1994 [for short, 'the Act']. The petitioner cannot dispute that this is an order that could be appealed under Section 107 of the Act, but the petitioner has invoked this Court's juri iction relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva W.P. No.11154/2023 and connected matters dated 03.07.2024. 2. Mr. Prakash D, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Order-in- Original is an ex parte order without due service of notice and is based on an information furnished by the Income Tax Department acting under an agreement signed between the Central Board for Direct Taxes and the Central Board for Indirect Taxes HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26141 but without due opportunity. The learned counsel argues that in very similar circumstances based on an undertaking given by the concerned from the department, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.11154/2023 and other matters [such as in W.P.No.20351/2024] restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with due opportunity.
Mr. Aravind V. Chavan, a learned Standing counsel who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, is heard and when queried, the learned counsel submits that the undertaking as recorded in W.P.No.11154/2023 was to ensure that the designated officers looked into complaints of similar nature but with march of time, the juri ictional Officer, such as the respondent in the present case, is empowered to extend an opportunity and decide on the merits of the cause that could be shown. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26141
This Court finds that the outcome in the writ petition must turn in the light of the afore circumstances notwithstanding the fact that the petition is filed almost after three years from the date of the impugned order because the petitioner asserts that it has not been served with notice or been extended an opportunity otherwise, and more importantly, the petitioner proposes to rely upon the statutory provisions to contend that the subject transaction does not result in any consequence to pay certain taxes. This Court finds that all these circumstances must be considered before a liability is fastened on the petitioner. Hence the following: ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2022/29.12.2022 [Annexure - B] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26141 [B] The petitioner shall, without further notice, file response, if any, with the respondent by 22.06.2026 even without waiting for a certified copy of this order.
[C] The respondent shall consider all the circumstances without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
RB
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.