Srushti Architects vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Srushti Architects, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) bearing No. 04/2024-25, dated April 29, 2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner sought to quash this order and obtain an interim stay on its operation. The respondents are the Joint Commissioner and the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax. The judgment does not specify the tax period or the amount in dispute. The procedural history leading to the OIO is not detailed, other than the fact that the petitioner is challenging the OIO itself.
Held
The Court held that the issue in controversy was directly and squarely covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate bench in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in WP No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 03.07.2024. In that precedent, the Court had ordered that Orders-in-Original challenging which writ petitions were filed would stand set aside and the matters would be relegated to the designated officers to be reconsidered from the stage of show-cause notice. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2024 was quashed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file pleadings within a reasonable time fixed by the concerned officer. The ratio decidendi is that challenges to Orders-in-Original under GST, when found to be covered by established precedent regarding procedural rectifications, should be set aside and remanded for reconsideration from an earlier stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original (OIO) No. 04/2024-25 dated 29.04.2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that the OIO should be quashed. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. The Court's decision was based on a previous judgment of a co-ordinate bench. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity and legality of the OIO issued by the revenue authority, which the petitioner seeks to set aside. The judgment does not explicitly mention specific provisions of the GST Act that were argued by either side, but the challenge is to an order passed under the GST regime.
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 any other writ/to quash the impugned Order-in-Original (OIO) bearing No.04/2024-25 [DIN 2024 0457YU000000BA00] dated 29.04.2024 [Annexure “A”] passed by Respondent No.1. (ii) 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 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. NC: 2024:KHC:38280 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 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 NC: 2024:KHC:38280 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 at Annexure-A dated 29.04.2024 is hereby quashed.
Ordered accordingly. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82
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.