Janiclass Dominic Ramesh vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 12.02.2024, passed under the Finance Act, 1994, which levied tax, interest, and penalty for the tax period 2015-16. The petitioner contended that the order, based on information from the Income Tax Department, was issued without extending a real opportunity to present their case, and sought to quash it by relying on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment in similar circumstances.
Held
The High Court allowed the petition in part, quashing the impugned Order-in-Original and restoring the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration. The Court directed the petitioner to file a response with documents by 22.07.2026, and instructed the respondent to consider all circumstances without rejecting the petitioner's case on grounds of delay.
Key Issues
The primary issue was whether the Order-in-Original, passed under the Finance Act, 1994, without a real opportunity for the petitioner to present their case, should be quashed. A secondary issue was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction despite an available appellate remedy, given precedents from a Co-ordinate Bench.
Sections Cited
Section 73(2), Section 75, Section 77, Section 78, Section 107 (all of the Finance Act, 1994)
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 12.02.2024 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 Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in W.P. No.11154/2023 and connected matters dated 03.07.2024. Mr. M. Thirumalesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Order-in- Original 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 without extending a real opportunity. The learned counsel HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26138 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 Officers, 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. This Court finds that the outcome in the writ petition must turn in the light of the afore circumstances with HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26138 liberty to the petitioner to file once again all documents. Hence the following: ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 12.02.2024 [Annexure - A] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration.
[B] The petitioner shall, without further notice, file response, if any, with the respondent by 22.07.2026 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.
RB (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
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.