Sri.Balakrishna M.Shetty vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Balakrishna M. Shetty, represented by his Special Power of Attorney Holder, Sri K. Surendra Nayak, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition sought to quash a show cause notice dated 11/10/2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 1), an Order-In-Original dated 26/12/2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), and an Order-In-Appeal dated 19/02/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise (Appeals) (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner contended that his case was similar to other assessees in whose favour a co-ordinate bench had passed an order on 03.07.2024 in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected matters.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was similarly placed as the assessees in the co-ordinate bench's order in W.P.No.11154/2023. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of on the same terms. The Court quashed the impugned Order-In-Original dated 26.12.2023 and the Order-In-Appeal dated 19.02.2025. The petitioner was directed to submit a reply to the impugned show cause notice (Annexure-A) within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The respondents were directed to proceed with the matter to its logical conclusion based on the reply submitted by the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that when a petitioner is similarly situated to those in a prior High Court judgment, the same relief should be granted, involving a remand to the stage of submitting a reply to the show cause notice and subsequent adjudication.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner's case is similar to the cases decided by the co-ordinate bench in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected matters, warranting similar relief? 2. Whether the show cause notice, Order-In-Original, and Order-In-Appeal are liable to be quashed based on the precedent set by the co-ordinate bench? The petitioner argued that his situation was identical to the assessees in the aforementioned writ petitions, and therefore, the matter should be disposed of on the same terms, with a direction to submit a reply to the show cause notice and for proceedings to be taken thereafter. The respondents did not dispute the legal position but agreed with the remittance to the stage of submitting a reply to the show cause notice.
Sections Cited
Finance Act, 1994 Section 65B(44), Notification No.25/2012-ST
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner – assessee is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“i) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the show cause notice dated 11/10/2021 vide C.No. IV/09/272/2021 ST ADJN issued by the Respondent No.1 herein marked and referred as Annexure-A.
ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Order-In- Original passed by the Respondent No.2 vide Sl. No. MLR-EX-CUS-000-DUK-ASC-RG-80-23-24 date of passing 26/12/2023 and date of issue 26/12/2023 herein marked and referred as Annexure-B.
iii) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the Order-In- Appeal passed by the Respondent No.3 vide No. MLR-EXCUS-000-APP-AS-133-2024-25 date of issuing 19/02/2025 herein marked and referred as Annexure-C.
iv) And pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
Heard Sri Annamalai S, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel for respondents.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the assessee in the subject petition is similarly placed like that of those assessees’, in whose favour an order is passed by the co- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31513 ordinate bench on 03.07.2024, in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected matters. The co-ordinate bench 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 ?
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31513 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.”
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the matter be disposed in the same terms as that of the order passed by the coordinate bench in the aforesaid writ petitions with a direction to submit a reply to the show cause notice and the proceedings to be taken thereafter. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31513
Learned counsel for the respondent would not dispute the position in 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.
In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the coordinate bench and that the fact the petitioner is similarly placed, the writ petition stands disposed, on the same terms as afore-quoted, with a rider that the petitioner shall now submit his reply to the impugned show cause notice - Annexure ‘A’, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondent shall take the matter to its logical
conclusion thereon, on the reply so submitted by the petitioner.
The impugned orders dated 26.12.2023 and 19.02.2025 at Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C’, stand quashed. Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32 CT:SS
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.