Mrs Changuland Muthanna Meenaxi vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Mrs. Changuland Muthanna Meenaxi, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal No. 152/2023-24 CT dated August 23, 2023, and a corrigendum issued on August 25, 2023. She also challenged the Order-in-Original (OIO) No. BLR-EXCUS-000-DIVND6-ASC-KRK-174-21-22 dated March 31, 2022. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders, arguing they were passed without the authority of law. Specifically, she requested that the matter be remitted to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax to ascertain payments made to sub-agents and grant deductions, asserting she was within SSI limits and had no liability to collect or pay service tax.
Held
The Court noted that the issue in controversy was directly covered by a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. In that case, writ petitions challenging Orders-in-Original were set aside, and the matters were relegated to designated officers to be reconsidered from the stage of the show-cause notice. Consequently, the present petition was also disposed of in terms of that judgment. The impugned Order-in-Appeal dated August 23, 2023, the corrigendum dated August 25, 2023, and the Order in Original dated March 31, 2022, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where a Co-ordinate Bench has ruled on a similar issue concerning the challenge to Orders-in-Original, the High Court should follow that precedent, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter for reconsideration from an earlier stage.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal No. 152/2023-24 CT dated August 23, 2023, and the corrigendum dated August 25, 2023, along with the Order-in-Original No. BLR-EXCUS-000-DIVND6-ASC-KRK-174-21-22 dated March 31, 2022, were passed without the authority of law, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the matter should be remitted to the respondent no. 3 to specifically ascertain the aspects of payments made by the petitioner to sub-agents and grant deductions in accordance with law, and to hold that the petitioner was within the SSI limits and had no liability to collect or pay service tax, as prayed by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without the authority of law and sought a remittance to the authority to reconsider payments to sub-agents and SSI limits. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment.
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 of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the Order-in-Appeal No.152/2023-24 CT dated 23.08.2023 was attached bearing a digital signature, copy enclosed as Annexure G. Subsequently on NC: 2024:KHC:32925
2023 a corrigendum was also issued which is enclosed as Annexure G1 and Order-In-Original (OIO for short) No. BLR-EXCUS-000-DIVND6-ASC- KRK-174-21-22 and bearing CNo.No IV/16/136 2020 ND6 ADNL DIN 20220457YZ0000444ADA dated 31.03.2022 in Annexure B.
b. Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the A.NO.369/2022-23 A-II Order-in- attached bearing a digital signature, copy enclosed as Annexure G. Subsequently on 25. 25.08.2023 a corrigendum was also issued which is enclosed as Annexure G1 and Order-In-Original (OIO for short) No. BLR-EXCUS-000-DIVND6-ASC-KRK-174-21-22 and bearing CNo.IV/16/136 2020 ND6 ADNL DIN 20220457YZ0000444ADA dated 31.03.2022 in Annexure B, were passed without the authority of law.
c. Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by setting aside A.No. 369/2022-23 A-II Order-in- attached bearing a digital signature, copy enclosed as Annexure G. Subsequently on 25.08.2023 a corrigendum was also issued which is enclosed as Annexure-G1 and Order-In-Original (010 for short) No.BLR-EXCUS-000-DIVND6-ASC-KRK-174-21-22 and bearing C.No.IV/16/136 2020 ND6 ADNL DIN NC: 2024:KHC:32925 20220457YZ0000444ADA dated 31.03.2022 in Annexure B, and remitting the matter back to Respondent no. 3 to ascertain specifically the aspects of payments by petitioner to sub-agents and grant deductions in accordance with law and hold that the Petitioner was within the SSI limits and there was no liability in law on the petitioner to collect or pay the service tax;
d. Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice.
e. Issue a direction to provide for the cost of this petition."
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
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; NC: 2024:KHC:32925 "
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 NC: 2024:KHC:32925 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 at Annexure-G dated 23.08.2023, the impugned corrigendum dated 25.08.2023 at Annexure-G1 and the impugned order in original at Annexure-B dated 31.03.2022 are hereby quashed.
Ordered accordingly. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE
PN CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
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.