M/S. A K Enterprises 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). The defect memos required the petitioners to pre-deposit a percentage of the service tax (10% in one case, 7.5% in others) before their appeals could be heard. The appeals were filed against orders passed by adjudicating authorities concerning service tax liability, specifically related to whether solid waste disposal for BBMP was covered under Service Tax Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012. The High Court had previously ordered that no precipitative action be taken in identical matters pending disposal.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners had filed memos seeking to withdraw their respective writ petitions. These memos indicated that a learned Single Judge of the High Court had disposed of identical matters (W.P.No.4495/2020 and 9522/2021) by directing petitioners to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority for pending show cause notices. Furthermore, for adjudication orders already passed, such orders were set aside and matters were relegated, permitting petitioners to raise contentions. In light of these developments and the petitioners' expressed desire to withdraw their petitions, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions as withdrawn. The issue of whether solid waste disposal for BBMP was covered under Service Tax Notification No. 25/2012 and the legality of the CESTAT's pre-deposit requirement were not decided on merits by this bench, as the petitions were withdrawn by the petitioners.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT was justified in insisting on a pre-deposit of service tax as a condition for admitting appeals, despite the pendency of related matters before the High Court and prior orders staying precipitative action. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the CESTAT's insistence on pre-deposit was contrary to the High Court's earlier orders in identical matters (W.P.No.4495/2020 and 9522/2021) which had stayed show cause notices and directed no precipitative action. They argued that a single judge of the High Court had already disposed of these related matters by directing petitioners to raise all contentions before the adjudicating authority for pending show cause notices, and in cases where adjudication orders were passed, these were set aside and relegated for petitioners to raise contentions. Therefore, the CESTAT should have admitted their appeals on merits without insisting on the pre-deposit. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondent authorities.
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.