Narayana Deppa vs. The Additional Commissioner Of
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Narayana Deppa, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an Order-in-Original (No.171/2023-24) dated March 28, 2024, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes. The petitioner also sought to quash a recovery notice (GST DRC-13) dated December 11, 2024, issued by the Superintendent Commissioner of Central Tax. The recovery notice directed the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda to recover Rs. 2,61,84,184/- from the petitioner's account. The respondents are the Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes and the Superintendent Commissioner of Central Tax.
Held
The Court held that the issue in controversy was directly and squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of the same High Court in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (W.P.No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 03.07.2024). Following that precedent, the Court quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated March 28, 2024, and the impugned Recovery Notice dated December 11, 2024. The reasoning was that the co-ordinate bench had set aside Orders-in-Original and relegated matters to the designated officers to be reconsidered from the stage of the show-cause notice. Consequently, the present petition was disposed of in terms of that judgment, leading to the quashing of the challenged orders and notices. The principle established is that where a co-ordinate bench has ruled on a similar issue, subsequent benches should follow that ruling, especially in writ proceedings concerning tax disputes.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original No.171/2023-24 dated 28.03.2024, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned Recovery Notice GST DRC-13 dated 11.12.2024, issued by the second respondent, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) The petitioner argued for the quashing of both the Order-in-Original and the recovery notice. The respondents, while not explicitly detailing their arguments in the provided text, were represented and heard. The court's decision was based on a prior judgment of a co-ordinate bench.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash impugned Order-in-Original No.171/ 2023 [DIN 2024 0357 YU 000000 A782] on 28.03.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the first respondent and to quash Recovery Notice i.e., GST DRC-13 dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure-B) issued by the second Respondent to Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, No.478, P- 2, Ideal Homes Township, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru-560098 requiring it to NC: 2025:KHC:15973 recover Rs.2,61,84,184/- from the Petitioner’s Account;
(b) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
Though several contentions have been urged by both the sides in support of their respective claims, the issue in controversy between the parties is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Karnataka Chinmaya Seva W.P.No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 03.07.2024, wherein it was held as under:
“Accordingly, the following: ORDER
In light of observations made above, the writ petitions relating to challenge to show- NC: 2025:KHC:15973 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 NC: 2025:KHC:15973 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.”
Under these circumstances, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Original at Annexure-A dated 28.03.2024 and Annexure-B, the impugned Recovery Notice dated 11.12.2024, are hereby quashed.
Ordered accordingly. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75
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.