M/S Pnr Constructions vs. Union Of INDIA

Original PDF →
WP/34228/2025HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01072502202517 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
For Petitioner: SRI. ATUL KRISHNA RAO ALUR, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47484 WP No. 34228 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 34228 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S PNR CONSTRUCTIONS NO. 250, BEHIND BDA COMPLEX 2ND CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, NAGRABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 072 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI PRABHAKAR K. N. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ATUL KRISHNA RAO ALUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE) MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, 1ST FLOOR, TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING, BANASHANKARI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 070 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL VIDE ORDER NO. OIO NO. 108/2025-26-SERVICE TAX DATED 15/10/2025 AT ANNEXURE-J Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47484 WP No. 34228 of 2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 FOR THE ALL THE THREE YEARS IN SO FOR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “A) Issue a writ of certiorari, or Writ of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order-In-Original vide order No. OIO No. 108/2025-26- Service Tax dated 15/10/2025 at ANNEXURE-J issued by the Respondent-2 for the all the three years in so for as the petitioner is concerned. B) Issue writ of declaration or writ in the nature of declaration declaring that The Resp-2 was not right in levying the tax on the Gross works contract receipts executed by the Petitioner for the Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as the petitioner has already paid the KVAT on the total consideration as per section 15 of the KVAT Act, in so for as the petitioners is concern. C) Issue writ of declaration or writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the VAT Act and Service Tax are mutually exclusive. Hence the Resp-2 was not right is levying the Tax on Works Contract. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47484 D) Issue writ of declaration or writ in the nature of declaration declaring that the Civil Work Executed to the State Government is exempted under section 102 of Service Tax Act, R/w Notification No 25/2012 ST dated 20/6/2012 in so for as the petitioner is concern. E) 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.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in WP No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 03.07.2024, wherein it was held as under; "

13.

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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47484 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. Wherever demands have been made pursuant to the impugned orders, such proceedings are also set aside."

4.

Under these circumstances, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47484

5.

Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-original at Annexure-J dated 15.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

6.

The matter is remitted back to the concerned respondent to the stage of post show cause notice and to proceed further in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 43

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.