Purna Prasad Godavarthi vs. The Principal Commissioner And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Purna Prasad Godavarthi, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) bearing No. BEL-EXCUS-COM-MG-61-2022-23-ST dated 26.08.2023, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, GST Belagavi Commissionerate (Respondent No. 1). The petitioner sought to quash this order. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, and the Superintendent of Central Tax.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition is partly allowed. Following the decision in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in WP No.11154/2023, the Court set aside the Order-in-Original. The matter was relegated to officers designated in terms of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the aforementioned order. These designated officers are to reconsider the demand of the revenue and the reply of the assessee in accordance with the law within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The ratio decidendi is that challenges to Orders-in-Original, in cases covered by the precedent, should be reconsidered from the stage of the show-cause notice by designated officers.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Original (OIO) bearing No. BEL-EXCUS-COM-MG-61-2022-23-ST dated 26.08.2023, passed by Respondent No. 1, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that the lis in the present matter is covered by a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in WP No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 3.7.2024. The revenue (Respondents 1 to 3) did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of the cited precedent. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies provisions related to challenging orders under GST law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;
a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ to quash Order-in-Original (OIO) bearing No.BEL-EXCUS-COM-MG-61-2022-23-ST (DIN 20230457TC000000C5D8) dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure-A) passed by Respondent No.1;
b. Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Both the counsel submits that the lis in the present matter is covered by a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya NC: 2024:KHC-K:6879 Tax in WP No.11154/2023 & connected matters dated 3.7.2024. The operative portion of the said order reads as under; 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 the impugned orders, such proceedings are also set aside. NC: 2024:KHC-K:6879
In view of the submission made by both the counsel and the order passed in WP No.11154/2023 being applicable to the present matter also, I passed the following; ORDER i. The writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The petitioner is relegated to officers so designated in terms of para 7 and 8 of the order in WP No.11154/2023. iii. The said officers to consider the demand of the revenue and reply of the assessee in accordance with law, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
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.