Shri Pramod S/O Manohar Patil vs. The Additional Commissioner Of
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Sri Shivaraj S.Balloli, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Sri Vijayendra Bhimakkanavar, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner in this petition seeks for the following prayers: “a. To issue a writ of certiorari on respondent no.1 setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the respondent no.1 in OIO S1.No. BEL-EXCUS-000- DIV-ADC-AKS-142 /2023-24-ST at ANNEXURE-D by the respondent no.1 and restoring the matter to the stage of Show Cause Notice;
b. To issue a writ of mandamus mandating the respondent no.2 to withdraw the notice in form no.GST-DRC-13 dated 09/09/2025 bearing DIN20250957TC070000CCAF issued by respondent no.2 the banker of the on petitioner, The Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank for recovery of Rs.1,97,13,611.73/-, the total liability as per order at ANNEXURE-C and thereby release the seizure on the bank account no.5031250000614 of the petitioner maintained in The Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Goa Ves Branch, Belagavi;
c. To direct the respondents to refund the deposit of Rs.4,21,060/- vide challan CTIN No. 2512795077 / IKODMTLB04 dated 19/12/2025 at ANNEXURE- H, being 7.5% of the tax of Rs.56,14,133/- as HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:501 provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. d. To compensate the petitioner adequately for violation of his rights under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India;
e. To grant such other relief as the Hon'ble Court may find appropriate under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. For favour of which the petitioners as in duty bound shall forever pray.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Commissioner of Central Tax and Others1 (“Chinmaya Seva Trust” for short).
Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, fairly does not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court nor its applicability to the facts of the present case.
1 W.P.No.11154 of 2023 and the connected matters dated 03.07.2024 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:501
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chinmaya Seva Trust has passed the following order: “ORDER In light of observations made above, the writ petitions relating to challenge to show-cause notice, such matters will stand relegated to the officers to be designated in terms of the observations made in para 8 above, at the same stage. Accordingly, such of the petitions at Sl.No.1 to 5 in Column No.1 of the table relating to challenge to show-cause notice are disposed off. Insofar as such writ petitions as detailed in Column 2 of the table relating to challenge to Orders-in-Original, in light of the discussion made above, the Orders-in-Original stand set aside and the matters are relegated to the Officers to be designated to be reconsidered from the stage of show-cause notice. Accordingly, such of the petitions at Sl.No.1 to 35 in Column No.2 of the table relating to challenge to Orders-in-Original are disposed off. The petitioners who are now relegated before the authorities concerned are at liberty to file their pleadings within a reasonable time as may be fixed by the Officers concerned. Wherever the matters are HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:501 pending in appeal in light of the arrangement that is made, petitioners to file a memo for withdrawal of appeal and accordingly, the orders-in-original in question would also receive the same treatment, i.e. be set aside as per the directions made above. Wherever demands have been made pursuant to the impugned orders, such proceedings are also set aside.”
The present writ petition relates to a challenge to the order-in-original passed by respondent No.1-CBDT. In Chinamaya Seva Trust, this Court has directed the authorities to reconsider the matter by keeping in mind the following aspects, which is extracted below:
“10. The officers while disposing off the petitions to keep in mind the following: 1) Whether petitioners do not qualify under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994? 2) Whether services are covered under negative list? 3) Whether services are covered under the exemption list under the Notification No.25/2012-ST HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:501 dated 28.06.2012 or under any other applicable Notifications? 4) Whether the person is liable to remit service tax in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) read with applicable notification? 5) Whether claims are barred by limitation in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court?”
In view of the aforesaid decision in the case of Chinmaya Seva Trust, and as the petitioner is similarly placed this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order-in-original (Annexure- D) passed by respondent No.1 and the consequential order dated (Annexure-C) issued by respondent No.2 insofar as it relates to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. iii. All further consequential orders arising therefrom shall not survive and are accordingly set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:501 iv. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1, who is directed to reconsider the same from the stage of issuance of show cause notice and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and in terms of the judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chinmaya Seva Trust. v. The petitioner is at liberty to file necessary pleading within reasonable time as fixed by the concerned authority. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
EM CT:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
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.