M/S Vision Manpower Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax And GST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s K K Enterprises, M/s Vision Manpower Private Limited, and M/s A.K. Enterprises, filed writ petitions before the Karnataka High Court. These petitions challenged defect memos issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which required them to pre-deposit a certain percentage (10% in one case, 7.5% in others) of the service tax amount before their appeals could be heard. The appeals were filed against orders passed by adjudicating authorities. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to direct CESTAT to admit and hear their appeals on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit. The High Court had previously ordered that no precipitative action be taken in identical matters pending disposal. A Single Judge of the High Court had disposed of related writ petitions with directions to raise contentions before the adjudicating authority for pending show cause notices, and for already passed adjudication orders, they were set aside and relegated for petitioners to raise contentions.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners in all three writ petitions had filed memos seeking leave to withdraw their respective petitions and the appeals filed before CESTAT. The memos detailed that the writ petitions challenged defect memos from CESTAT requiring pre-deposit of service tax. The petitioners cited previous High Court orders staying show cause notices and ordering no precipitative action. Crucially, they referred to a Single Judge's order dated February 20, 2025, in related writ petitions (W.P.No.9522/2021 and others), which disposed of matters involving identical issues. In those disposed cases, directions were given to petitioners to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority for pending show cause notices, and for already passed adjudication orders, they were set aside and relegated for petitioners to raise contentions. Based on these memos and the prior High Court proceedings, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petitions. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petitions as withdrawn, with costs made easy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in insisting on a pre-deposit of 7.5% or 10% of the service tax amount before admitting the appeals filed by the petitioners, thereby preventing the appeals from being heard on merits? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their appeals heard by the CESTAT without the pre-deposit, given the prior orders of the High Court in similar matters and the subsequent disposal of related writ petitions by a Single Judge? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the CESTAT's insistence on pre-deposit was a barrier to accessing justice and that the High Court's previous orders in identical matters, including the disposal of related writ petitions by a Single Judge, should govern the present situation. They relied on the directions given in those disposed petitions, which allowed petitioners to raise contentions before the adjudicating authority or have adjudication orders set aside and matters relegated. The petitioners sought to withdraw their writ petitions and appeals before CESTAT, with liberty to challenge adjudication orders before the Single Judge of the High Court. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents in opposition to the petitioners' contentions or their request for withdrawal.
Sections Cited
Service Tax notification No.25/2012
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
IN WP NO.21213/2022: Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Memo dated 16.04.2025 seeking leave to withdraw the Writ Petition, which reads as under: “The Petitioner above named most respectfully submits as follows:
The present writ petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court Challenging Defect Memo bearing No.ST/DEFECT/207122022 DATED 26.09.2022 (ANNEXURE-F) issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) requiring it to pre-deposit 7.5% of the service tax amount in respect of appeal filed before the Hon’ble CESTAT challenging the adjudicating authority.
The Petitioner further submits that this Hon’ble Court, after noting that the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court had stayed show cause notices in identical matters in that no precipitative action shall be taken in the matter pending disposal of the writ petition.
The Petitioner submits that the involving identical issue i.e., whether solid waste disposal undertaken for BBMP is covered vide Sl.No.25 of Service Tax notification disposed of by the Ld. Single Judge of the NC: 2025:KHC:16669-DB Hon’ble High Court vide order dated in 20th other writ petitions with directions to the petitioners to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority in respect of show cause notices pending adjudication.
Further, in respect of adjudication orders already passed by the authorities, such orders have been set aside and the matters have been relegated permitting the petitioners to take to contentions raised in the petitions filed before this Hon’ble Court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the above, the Petitioners craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the above petition as well as the appeal filed before Hon’ble CESTAT along with liberty to challenge the adjudication order before the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate reliefs.”
IN WP NO.20054/2021: Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Memo dated 16.04.2025 seeking leave to withdraw the Writ Petition, which reads as under: “The Petitioner above named most respectfully submits as follows:
The present writ petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court Challenging Defect Memo bearing DIARY NO.DEFECT/207182021 (ANNEXURE-E) issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) requiring it to pre-deposit 7.5% of the service NC: 2025:KHC:16669-DB tax amount in respect of appeal filed before the Hon’ble CESTAT challenging the adjudicating authority.
The Petitioner further submits that this Hon’ble Court, after noting that the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court had stayed show cause notices in identical matters in that no precipitative action shall be taken in the matter pending disposal of the writ petition.
The Petitioner submits that the involving identical issue i.e., whether solid waste disposal undertaken for BBMP is covered vide Sl.No.25 of Service Tax notification disposed of by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated in 20th other writ petitions with directions to the petitioners to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority in respect of show cause notices pending adjudication.
Further, in respect of adjudication orders already passed by the authorities, such orders have been set aside and the matters have been relegated permitting the petitioners to take to contentions raised in the petitions filed before this Hon’ble Court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the above, the Petitioner craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the above petition as well as the appeal filed before Hon’ble CESTAT along with liberty to challenge the adjudication order NC: 2025:KHC:16669-DB before the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate reliefs.”
IN WP NO.3529/2022: Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Memo dated 16.04.2025 seeking leave to withdraw the Writ Petition, which reads as under: “The Petitioner above named most respectfully submits as follows:
The present writ petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court challenging Defect Memo bearing DIARY NO.DEFECT/209512021 (ANNEXURE-E) issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) requiring it to pre-deposit 7.5% of the service tax amount in respect of appeal filed before the Hon’ble CESTAT challenging the adjudicating authority.
The Petitioner further submits that this Hon’ble Court, after noting that the Ld. Single Judge of the High Court had stayed show cause notices in identical matters in that no precipitative action shall be taken in the matter pending disposal of the writ petition.
The Petitioner submits that the involving identical issue i.e., whether solid waste disposal undertaken for BBMP is covered vide Sl.No.25 of Service Tax notification disposed of by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated in 20th NC: 2025:KHC:16669-DB other writ petitions with directions to the petitioners to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority in respect of show cause notices pending adjudication.
Further, in respect of adjudication orders already passed by the authorities, such orders have been set aside and the matters have been relegated permitting the petitioners to take to contentions raised in the petitions filed before this Hon’ble Court.
WHEREFORE, in view of the above, the Petitioner craves the leave of this Hon’ble Court to withdraw the above petition as well as the appeal filed before Hon’ble CESTAT along with liberty to challenge the adjudication order before the Ld. Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate reliefs.”
In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed off as withdrawn, costs having been made easy. (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
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.