Shri Sidram Bhuthappa Hirekurabar vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A) Issue a writ of certiorari, or writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order-In-Appeal vide OIA No.BGM-EXCUS-000-APP- COMMR-VDJ-088-2025-26 at ANNEXURE-E issued by Respondent-2 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
B) Issue writ of declaration or writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the Resp-3 was not right in levying the service tax on the entire value of the labor charges for the period from April 2015 to June 2017 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
C) Issue Writ of Mandamus or writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Resp-3 to allow the apportionment/setoff as per the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006 insofar as the Petitioner is concerned.
D) Issue any other Writ or Directions deemed fit, in the facts and circumstance of the case, including the cost of the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice and equity.
Heard learned counsel Sri.Atul K. Alur and Sri.N.P.Vivekmehta, appearing for petitioner, learned counsel Sri.M.B.Kanavi, appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.Girish Hulmani, appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15978 rendered by a co-ordinate bench in the case of M/S COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, in W.P.No.11154/2023 AND CONNECTED MATTERS, disposed on 03.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would not dispute the position of law, except the fact that the matter should be remitted to the stage of the submission of reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner.
The co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected matters, considering the entire spectrum of the law and issue, passed the following order:
“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 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 ? HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15978
It is also clarified that disposal of present petitions must not be construed as having adjudicated any of the contentions including juri iction. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open.
Needless to state, upon conclusion of proceedings, if any of the petitioners are still aggrieved, legal remedies are kept open. It is also clarified that wherever, replies to show-cause notice have not been made out, the same may be filed upon matter being relegated as noticed above.
Accordingly, the following: 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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15978 Wherever demands have been made pursuant to the impugned orders, such proceedings are also set aside.”
In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the coordinate bench and that the fact the petitioner is similarly placed, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to respondent No.3 –Authority.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed and remitted back to respondent No.3 - Authority. b. The impugned order-in-Appeal vide OIA No.BGM- EXCUS-000-APP-COMMR-VDJ-088-2025-26 vide Annexure-E issued by respondent No.2, stand quashed. c. The petitioner shall now submit his reply to the show cause notice dated 17.04.2021, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. d. Respondent No.3 shall, from the stage of submitting reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner, consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the afore-quoted judgment of the co-ordinate bench. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15978 e. It is open to the authority to regulate its procedure and take the issue to its logical conclusion.
Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
RHR/-CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
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.