Mallikarjun Sangappa Rajamani vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER NO.CTO/LGSTO-420/SEC-73/ORDER.240/2023-24/B- 4593 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C.
III) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN APPEAL, DATE 25-04-2025 VIDE APPEAL NO.GST-546/2024-25 FALLS PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IS ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15740 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following prayer: I) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Summary of Revised Show Cause Notice in No.ACCT/ LGSTO420/BGK/2023-24/B-2437,dated 30/09/2023 issued by Respondent No. 1 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-B. II) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order U/s. 73(9) of KGST/CGST ACT 2017, passed on 13-12-2023 vide Order No.CTO/LGSTO-420/Sec- 73/Order.240/2023-24/B-4593 passed by Respondent No.1 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-C. III) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned Order in Appeal, date 25-04-2025 vide Appeal No.GST-546/2024-25 falls passed by Respondent No.3 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-E. IV) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.
Heard Sri Shashank Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for the respondents.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate bench in the case of M/S HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15740 KARNATAKA COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, in W.P.No.11154/2023 AND CONNECTED MATTERS, disposed on 03.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would not dispute the position of law, except the fact that the matter should be remitted to the stage of the submission of reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner.
The Co-ordinate Bench in the aforesaid W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected matters, considering the entire spectrum of the law and issue, passed the following order:
“10. The officers while disposing off the petitions to keep in mind the following:
1) Whether petitioners do not qualify under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 ? 2) Whether services are covered under negative list? 3) Whether services are covered under the exemption list under the Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 28.06.2012 or under any other applicable Notifications? 4) Whether the person is liable to remit service tax in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) read with applicable notification? 5) Whether claims are barred by limitation in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court ?
It is also clarified that disposal of present petitions must not be construed as having adjudicated any HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15740 of the contentions including juri iction. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open.
Needless to state, upon conclusion of proceedings, if any of the petitioners are still aggrieved, legal remedies are kept open. It is also clarified that wherever, replies to show-cause notice have not been made out, the same may be filed upon matter being relegated as noticed above.
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 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.” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15740
In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Coordinate Bench and that the fact the petitioner is similarly placed, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to respondent No.2 – Authority.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed and remitted back to the respondent No.2 - Authority. b. The impugned order-in-original dated 13.12.2023, at Annexure ‘C’ and order-in-appeal dated 25.04.2023, at Annexure-E, stand quashed. c. The petitioner shall now submit his reply to the show cause notice dated 30.09.2023, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. d. Respondent No.2 shall, from the stage of submitting reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner, consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the afore-quoted judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15740 e. It is open to the Authority to regulate its procedure and take the issue to its logical conclusion. Ordered accordingly. (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
KGK CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 361
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.