BharatTaxGST

Commissioner Of Central Excise And Central Tax (Review) vs. Ocean Constructions (INDIA) Private Limited

Original PDF →
WA/798/2026HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01016406202624 April 2026Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND5 pages
For Respondent: SRI. PRANAAV G AMBEKAR, ADV

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Heard together (2 matters)

WA No. 798 of 2026
WP NO.37864/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23118-DB WA No. 798 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 798 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX (REVIEW), VII FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALURU - 757003. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX MANGALORE SOUTH DIVISION, 5TH FLOOR, PUNJA BUILDING, ANNEXE, LAL BAGH, MANGALORE - 575003. 3. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, MANGALURU COMMISSIONERATE, MANGALURU, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX, VII FLOOR, TRADE CENTRE, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALURU – 575003. 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALURU SOUTH DIVISION, MANGALURU, 5TH FLOOR, PUNJA BUILDING ANNEXE, BALLALBAGH, MANGALURU – 575003. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES AND CENTRAL EXCISE, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23118-DB WA No. 798 of 2026 HPU, TRADE CENTRE, MANGALURU – 575003. 6. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAXES AND CENTRAL EXCISE KADRI RANGE, SOUTH DIVISION, MANGALURU, 5TH FLOOR, PUNJA BUILDING ANNEXE, BALLALBAGH, MANGALURU-575003. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN, ADV.) AND: OCEAN CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, NO. 15-17-893/3(3), ZUHRA, 2ND CROSS, SHIVABAGH, KADRI, MANGALURU - 575002 GSTIN 29AABC00864E1ZJ REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SHARFUDDIN ALI, SON OF MR. MOHAMMED MULKI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRANAAV G AMBEKAR, ADV.) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.37864/2025 (T-RES) DATED 17.12.2025 AND B. PASS SUCH OTHER SUITABLE ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23118-DB WA No. 798 of 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

This Writ Appeal by the Revenue under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is directed against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.12.2025 in W.P.No.37864/2025 where under the respondent’s writ petition is allowed quashing the common show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act dated 11.07.2024, Summary of Order dated 04.02.2025 and Order-in-Original dated 23.01.2025. 2. This Court by order dated 24.04.2026 in W.A.No.1751/2024 and Connected Appeals, allowed the Writ Appeals and restored the show cause notice and Orders in Original. The decision rendered therein would aptly apply to these appeals also. Since we have held that the consolidated/common show cause notice is permissible, and since the Orders-in-Original impugned in the impugned Writ Petition was quashed in pursuance to the common show cause notice under HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23118-DB Section 74 of the Act, we deem it appropriate to provide liberty to the respondents herein to file statutory appeal within the time to be prescribed by this Court. Having regard to the limited power vested in the appellate authority to condone the delay, coupled with the fact that the respondent had been diligently pursuing the remedy by way of writ petition, we deem it appropriate, while relegating the respondent to the statutory remedy of appeal, to grant six weeks' time to file such appeal. If such appeal is filed within the time granted hereinabove, the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits without raising the plea of limitation.

3.

Hence, the following:

ORDER (i) Writ appeal is allowed.

(ii) The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 17.12.2025 in W.P.No.37864/2025 is set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23118-DB (iii) The Order-in-Original dated 23.01.2025 is restored and show cause notice dated 11.07.2024 also stands restored.

(iv) The respondent is provided six weeks time from the day this Judgment is uploaded on the website of this Court to avail the remedy of statutory appeal.

(v) If the respondent files appeal within the period stated above, the appellants/Revenue shall not raise the question of limitation.

(vi) The Appellate Authority also shall hear the appeal on merits, if the appeal is filed within the time stated above. (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

MPK CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29

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.