The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. Shri Bangalore Rudrappa Vijaykumar

The dispute relates to the tax period between July 2017 and March 2018 and the demand for GST with penalty and interest. The tax demanded is in a sum of Rs.56,59,286/-, the interest in a sum of Rs.30,56,220/- and the penalty is equivalent to the tax in demand. These demands are based on taxable HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54190-DB supplies valued in a sum of Rs.4,71,60,716/-. The taxable supply undisputedly is the sale of rights to a movie title "Johny Johny Yes Papa".

The Writ Court has interfered with the Order-in-Original restoring the matter to the first appellant with directions to treat the Order-in- Original as an Order under Section 73 of the CGST Act observing that if the respondent applies to avail the benefit of Amnesty Scheme under Section 128 of CGST Act, the first appellant shall grant the respondent the benefit of this Scheme. The Writ Court's reasoning is as under:

2022 passed by respondent No.1 and as such, the impugned order purported to have been passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act may be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to respondent No.1 for reconsideration afresh, under law, by treating the proceedings as proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act and pass an appropriate order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act and by directing respondent No.1 to grant the benefit of Amnesty Scheme, in favour of the petitioner, who would file such an application before respondent No.1. 4. Mr. Aravind V. Chavan, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the Writ Court could not have rendered an opinion holding that the respondent is entitled to avail the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme without examining whether the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act was justified because if the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act are justified, the respondent will not be entitled to avail the benefit under the Scheme, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54190-DB which is only for the proceedings under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The learned counsel emphasizes that the proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act are initiated with the issuance of Show Cause Notice resulting in the Order-in-Original based on ascertainment of the intent that is crucial to invoke Section 74 thereof.

Mr. Annamalai S, the learned counsel for the respondent, places on record the first appellant's order dated 14.10.2025, to contend that the first appellant, after a detailed discussion in the light of the Writ Court's direction has held that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme and as such, the appeal is rendered infructuous.

In rejoinder, Mr. Aravind V. Chavan submits that while he cannot dispute that with the first appellant's order dated 14.10.2025, this intra- Court appeal could be rendered infructuous but he HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54190-DB will request this Court to observe that the Writ Court's impugned order cannot be a precedent and that the assessee, who has to answer proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, cannot be permitted the benefit of the Scheme unless there is a conclusion on examination of the facts of each case that the proceedings could have been confined only to the provisions under Section 73 of the CGST Act.

This Court, on a careful consideration of the circumstances of the case and on perusal of the first appellant's order dated 14.10.2025, is persuaded to opine that the appeal indeed is rendered infructuous, and insofar as the apprehension that the Writ Court's order would be a precedent notwithstanding the facts peculiar to a given case, this Court opines that it would suffice to observe that it cannot be as each case must necessarily be examined in the specific factual context. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:54190-DB The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE