M/S Sujala Infranstructure Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Central Taxes
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: “a. Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other order, or direction quashing the Impugned Order (Original) vide C.NO.V/15/65/73/2021 AdJN. BNW Order Sl. No.24/2023-24/COM/BMW bearing DIN: 20232257YX0000163885 dated 13.11.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by Respondent No. 1, demanding service tax of ₹2,03,13,910/- along with interest and penalty for the Financial Year 2015-16. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36057 b. Remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
c. Pass any other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36057
follows:
“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 ?
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: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36057 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. Wherever demands have been made pursuant to the impugned orders, such proceedings are also set aside.”
In the light of the submissions so made, the petition deserves to be disposed, in the same terms as is done by the Coordinate Bench, in the judgment quoted supra. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36057
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The Writ Petition is allowed.
b. Impugned Order (Original) dated 13-11-2023 [Annexure-A] passed by the 1st respondent stands quashed.
c. The matter is remitted back for reconsideration from the stage of show-cause notice afresh, to the hands of the respondents, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the case of KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST supra.
d. The petitioner is at liberty to file his pleadings within a reasonable time as may be fixed by the concerned Officer of the Revenue.
Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 118
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.