M/S Bhavesh Carriers vs. Union Of INDIA

WP/17193/2023HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01040040202313 August 2024Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. ANIRUDHA R NAYAK., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.TIMMAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bhavesh Carriers, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an Order-in-Original (OIO) dated May 26, 2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South GST Commissionerate. The petitioner sought to set aside this order, arguing it was passed without the authority of law and that there was no liability to collect or pay service tax. The petition also prayed for the matter to be remitted back to the authority for reconsideration of aspects related to registration and documents submitted by the petitioner.

Held

The High Court of Karnataka, in this case, followed the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. The Court held that writ petitions challenging Orders-in-Original would stand set aside and the matters would be relegated to the designated officers to be reconsidered from the stage of the show-cause notice. The Court quashed the impugned Order-in-Original dated 26.05.2023. The petitioners relegated before the authorities were granted liberty to file their pleadings within a reasonable time. Where demands were made pursuant to the impugned orders, such proceedings were also set aside. The ratio decidendi is that challenges to Orders-in-Original under GST, in certain circumstances, warrant setting aside and reconsideration from an earlier stage, specifically the show-cause notice stage, by designated officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original No.BLR-SOUTH/ADC/193/2022-23 dated 26.05.2023 was passed without the authority of law, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the matter should be remitted back to the authority for reconsideration of the petitioner's registration and submitted documents, and to ascertain if there was any legal liability on the petitioner to collect or pay service tax? The petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was passed without the authority of law and that no liability to collect or pay service tax existed. The respondents, Union of India and the GST authorities, did not record specific arguments in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contentions. However, the Court noted that several contentions were urged by both sides.

Sections Cited

Not specified in the judgment

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32934 WP No. 17193 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 17193 OF 2023 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. BHAVESH CARRIERS, ESTABLISHED UNDER COMPANY ACT 1956, DOOR NO.5, TEJA REDDY BUILDING, JIGANI BOMMASANDRA LINK ROAD, APC CIRCLE, JIGANI, ANEKAL TALUKA BANGALORE - 560 105. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MAHENDER SINGH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIRUDHA R NAYAK., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI – 110 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE, C.R BUILDING, P.B. NO.5400, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by Vandana S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:32934 WP No. 17193 of 2023 3. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU SOUTH GST COMMISSIONERATE, C.R BUILDING, P B NO. 5400, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.TIMMAPPA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINAL NO. BLR-SOUTH/ADC/193/2022-23 DIN NO. 20230557YV09001151FE DATED 26/05/2023 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE – Q AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

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-Original No.BLR- SOUTH/ADC/193/2022-23 DIN No.20230557YV0 9001151FE dated 26.05.2023 enclosed as Annexure Q. NC: 2024:KHC:32934 b. Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order of direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the Order-in-Original NO BLR- SOUTH/ADC/193/2022-23 DIN No:20230557YV0 90011511E dated 26.05.2023 enclosed as Annexure Q 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 Order-in-Original No.BLR- SOUTH/ADC/193/2022-23 DIN No.20230557YV 09001151FE dated 26.05.2023 enclosed as Annexure Q and remitting the matter back to Respondent no. 3 to ascertain specifically the aspects on registration and documents submitted by the Petitioner and there being 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. NC: 2024:KHC:32934

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; "

13.

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 NC: 2024:KHC:32934 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 impugned order at Annexure-Q dated 26.05.2023 is hereby quashed.

Ordered accordingly. (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

PN CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

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.