M/S Shaum Solutions Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shaum Solutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an Order-In-Original dated October 30, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Special Adjudication Cell-1, Bengaluru GST South Commissionerate (Respondent No. 3). The petitioner sought to quash this order and sought directions for the respondent to consider input tax credit against output tax and taxes paid. The respondents are the Union of India and GST authorities. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned order, which the petitioner is now challenging through this writ petition.
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. In that precedent, the Court had set aside Orders-In-Original and relegated the matters to the designated officers for reconsideration from the stage of the show-cause notice. Applying this precedent, the Court quashed the impugned Order-In-Original passed by the third respondent. The matter was remitted to the third respondent for reconsideration afresh from the stage of submitting the reply to the show cause notice dated March 26, 2024, and to proceed further in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that challenges to Orders-In-Original, where the issue is covered by a binding precedent of the same High Court, should be disposed of by setting aside the order and remitting the matter for reconsideration from an earlier stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order-In-Original No.GEXCOM/11338/2024-ADJN-O/o COMMR-CCST-BENGALURU(S) dated 30.10.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 3), is liable to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the Order-In-Original and sought a writ of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider input tax credit claimed against output tax and taxes paid. The petitioner relied on 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 in WP No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 03.07.2024. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's case. However, the respondents were represented by counsel who argued the matter.
Sections Cited
Article 226, Article 227
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: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari, or writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Order-In-Original No.GEXCOM /11338/2024-ADJN-O/o COMMR-CCST-BENGALURU(S) date of passing:30.10.2024 passed by third respondent at Annexure “G”. (ii) Issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the third respondent to consider the input tax clamied as against the out put tax and also the taxes paid. (iii) Issue any other writ or directions deemed fit, in the facts and circumstance of the case, including the cost of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” NC: 2025:KHC:9569
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 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 Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in WP 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-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 NC: 2025:KHC:9569 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."
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 following: ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) Impugned Order-in-Original vide Annexure-G dated 30.10.2024 is hereby quashed. NC: 2025:KHC:9569 (iii) Matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent for reconsideration, afresh, from the stage of submitting the reply to the show cause notice dated 26th March 2024 and proceed further in accordance with law. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59
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.