Sri Krishna Raghavendra Hari Kandili v. The Union of India

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."

¶10The 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?

¶11It is also clarified that disposal of present petitions must not be construed as having adjudicated any of the contentions including

jurisdiction. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open.

¶12Needless 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.

¶13Accordingly, 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."

¶7Taking note of the above, the order-in-original at Annexure-E is set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The authorities to take note of observations made in W.P.No.11154/2023 dated 03.07.2024 as extracted supra, in specific to the observations made in Para 10 of the order as may be applicable.

¶8In light of the assertion that copy of show cause notice has not been served, the Authorities to furnish copy of the same to the petitioner. Needless to state, the petitioner is at liberty to make out fresh reply to the said show cause notice. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.3 without waiting for any notice on 21.04.2026.

¶9In light of setting aside of the order-in-original, the authorities to recall their advice regarding attachment of Bank Account forthwith. All contentions are kept open.

¶10Accordingly, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:16583 WP(No.(7315(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(24 (DAY(OF(MARCH,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(7315(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:( 1., SRI,KRISHNA,RAGHAVENDRA,HARI,KANDILI, S/O,SREENIVASA,MURTHY,K, AGED,ABOUT,52,YEARS, RESIDING,AT,FLAT,NO.,203,, SAI,SHAKTHI,RESIDENCY, 1ST,MAIN,,3RD,CROSS, NEAR,ABBAIAH,STUDIO,NAIDU,LAYOUT, AREHALLY,,BENGALURU-560,061., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,SURYA,KANTH,C,S.,ADVOCATE), AND: 1., THE,UNION,OF,INDIA, THROUGH,ITS,SECRETARY,,(REVENUE),, MINISTRY,OF,FINANCE,Digitallytisigned by0VIJAYA0P DEPARTMENT,OF,REVENUE, Location:0HIGH GOVERNMENT,OF,INDIA,,NORTH,BLOCK, COURT0OF KARNATAKA NEW,DELHI,110,001., 2., THE,PRINCIPAL,CHIEF,COMMISSIONER, OF,CENTRAL,TAX,,BENGALURU,SOUTH, COMMISSIONERATE,,CR,BUILDING, QUEENS,ROAD,,BENGALURU,560,001., 3., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER,, OF,CENTRAL,TAX,,WEST,DIVISION,6, BENGALURU,WEST,COMMISSIONERATE, 1ST,FLOOR,,TTMC,COMPLEX, BMTC BUS STAND, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V CHAVAN., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED OIO NO.223/2023-24 DATE OF PASSING-08/3/2024 AT ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Sri. Aravind V. Chavan, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents. 2. Petitioner has called in question the correctness of the order-in-original at Annexure-E passed by respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adjudication culminating in demand for service tax is on the basis of inputs received from CBDT. It is submitted that in an identical circumstance where service tax demand has been raised pursuant to adjudication on the basis of information available under the income tax returns, the Courts have been setting aside orders and remitting matters for fresh consideration taking note of observations made in W.P.No.11154/2023. 4. It is submitted that the order passed is an ex- parte order and there was no communication of notice. It is further submitted that the quantification of liability is also a matter to be demonstrated before the Authority and accordingly requests for setting aside of the order in original. 5. Perused the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions. 6. This Court while disposing of the said petitions by remanding it to the stage of reply to the show cause notice had made certain observations to be kept in mind by the concerned officials. The observations made from para-10 onwards reads as follows:- "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? 11. It is also clarified that disposal of present petitions must not be construed as having adjudicated any of the contentions including jurisdiction. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open. 12. 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. 13. Accordingly, the following: