Sri Venkateshwara Road Lines vs. Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax

Held

The Court held that the controversy in the present petition is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in WP No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 03.07.2024. In that judgment, for challenges to Orders-in-Original, the Court had set aside the Orders-in-Original and relegated the matters to the designated officers to be reconsidered from the stage of show-cause notice. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-original at Annexure – A and the impugned Order-in-appeal at Annexure – B in the present petition were quashed. The petitioners were granted liberty to file their pleadings within a reasonable time fixed by the concerned officers. The ratio decidendi is that where a challenge is made to an Order-in-Original, and the matter is covered by precedent directing reconsideration from the show-cause notice stage, the Order-in-Original and subsequent appellate orders should be set aside and the matter remanded.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Venkateshwara Road Lines, filed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original (OIO) dated March 28, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru West Commissionerate. This order pertained to the tax periods 2015-16 and 2016-17. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent order dated October 10, 2025, passed by the First Appellate Authority, Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Mysuru. The petitioner sought to quash both these orders. The respondents are the Additional Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order in Original bearing No.OIO.168/2023024 - Service Tax, dated 28.03.2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax for the periods 2015-16 and 2016-17, and the subsequent Order in Appeal dated 10.10.2025, are liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that these orders should be quashed. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The issue is directly covered by a previous judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court.