M/S Lava Kusha Transport vs. The Commissioner Of Central Tax And GST
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Lava Kusha Transport, filed a writ petition challenging a defect memo issued by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The defect memo required the petitioner to pre-deposit 7.5% of the service tax amount for an appeal filed before CESTAT, which was against an order passed by an adjudicating authority. The petitioner had previously obtained a stay on show cause notices in identical matters, preventing precipitative action. A Single Judge of the High Court had disposed of similar writ petitions, directing petitioners to raise contentions before the adjudicating authority or, in cases of already passed adjudication orders, setting them aside and relegating matters for petitioners to raise their contentions.
Held
The Court allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner, in their memo, stated that similar writ petitions concerning the issue of whether solid waste disposal for BBMP is covered under Service Tax notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012, had been disposed of by a Single Judge. In those disposed matters, directions were given to petitioners to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority for pending show cause notices. For adjudication orders already passed, they were set aside and relegated, permitting petitioners to raise contentions. In light of these developments, the petitioner sought to withdraw their writ petition and their appeal before CESTAT, with liberty to challenge any adjudication order before the High Court. The Court accepted this request and disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition challenging the CESTAT defect memo requiring pre-deposit of 7.5% of service tax, in light of the disposal of similar writ petitions by the High Court? The petitioner argued that following the High Court's disposal of identical matters, where petitioners were directed to raise contentions before the adjudicating authority or where adjudication orders were set aside and relegated, they should be allowed to withdraw their petition. They also sought liberty to withdraw their appeal before CESTAT and challenge any adjudication order before the High Court. The revenue or State did not record any arguments in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Memo dated 16.04.2025 seeking withdrawal of 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/205522022 (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 W.P. No. 4495/2020 and 9522/2021 had ordered that no precipitative action shall be taken in the matter pending disposal of the writ petition.
The Petitioner submits that the W.P. 4495/2020 tagged with other matters involving identical issue i.e., whether solid waste disposal undertaken for BBMP is covered vide SI. No 25 of Service Tax notification No. 25/2012 dated NC: 2025:KHC:16668-DB WP No. 15573 of 2022
2012 or not, has been disposed of by the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated in 20th February 2025 in W.P. No 9522/2021 C/W with 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, Writ Petition is disposed off as withdrawn, costs having been made easy. (KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE
cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
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.