M/S Ict Service Management Solutions (INDIA) Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner (Audit)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Impugned Order-in-Original No.93/2021-22 bearing DIN: 20220357YX000000C568 dated 30.03.2022 [Annexure-A] passed by the respondent No.3;
b) Declare that the petitioner’s payments made under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 constitute valid discharge of tax dues for the relevant period and direct the respondents to grant all consequential reliefs accordance with law;
c) Remand the matter to the respondent Authority for fresh consideration and adjudication in accordance with law and after duly taking into account the payments made by the petitioner under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013;
d) Direct the Respondents that in case no liability is payable, the amount deposited by the petitioner under the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51958 Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013, be refunded to the petitioner in accordance with law.
e) Pass any other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to respondent No.3 issuing a Show Cause Notice dated 18.11.2013 alleging short payment of service tax and proposed interest and penalty on the petitioner, the petitioner appeared and put-forth its objections interalia contending that they have already filed a declaration under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013 and made payments. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though it had put-forth its objections, which was referred to in the impugned order and the same were not considered by respondent No.3 before passing the impugned order, and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51958
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that at paragraph 7, respondents have referred to the reply submitted by the petitioner claiming benefit of payments made by him under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), 2013. However, during the course of findings, no findings have been recorded by the respondent in this regard and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter remitted back for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.
In the result, I pass the following: ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order-in-original dated 30.03.2022 passed by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside.
(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No.3 for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51958 (iv) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.3 on 19.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the respondent No.3. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit replies, documents etc., which shall be considered by the respondent No.3, who shall provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and hear them and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 125
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.