Sri Chokkareddy vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central Tax GST
Facts
The petitioner, Sri Chokkareddy, an individual practicing advocate, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner contended that he was exempt from service tax and GST. The impugned order, however, held that the petitioner's activities constituted a taxable service under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner argued that this order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction. He also claimed that he was not provided sufficient opportunity to present his case. The respondents argued that the petition lacked merit and should be dismissed.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 had not considered the petitioner's contentions, including the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Adv. Pooja Patil's case, and that the petitioner had not been provided sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit his pleadings and documents before the respondents, who were directed to consider them and proceed further. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 27.09.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner is an individual practicing advocate allegedly exempt from service tax and GST? 2. Whether the petitioner was provided sufficient and reasonable opportunity to present his case before the impugned order was passed? The petitioner argued that as an individual practicing advocate, he was exempt from service tax and GST, rendering the impugned order illegal and arbitrary. He relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in Adv. Pooja Patil Vs The Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner further contended that the respondent failed to consider these aspects and did not provide adequate opportunity. The respondents argued that the petition had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.
Sections Cited
Section 65B(44), Section 65B(51), Section 66B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:11864 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3647 OF 2024 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI CHOKKAREDDY S/O LATE BACHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT PROPERTY NO 51, 4TH FLOOR NIHARIKA RESIDENCY BYTARAYANAPURA WARD NO 7, SHABRI NAGAR MAIN ROAD SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST COMMISSIONERATE BANGALORE EAST BANGALORE EAST HAVING OFFICE AT:4TH FLOOR T T M C/ BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR BANGALORE - 560 071. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE NORTH GST COMMISSIONERATE (DIVN - 7) 4TH FLOOR, SP COMPLEX, LALBAGH ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AKASH SHETTY .,ADVOCATE) VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka NC: 2024:KHC:11864 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A DATED 27/09/2
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.