Shri Shashidhar S v. The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax

ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.12/2024-25 DATED 15.05.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-'A' dated

15.05.2024 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the Authorities after invoking the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 have adjudicated the proceedings and raised the demand of Service Tax.

¶2The petitioner has also challenged Order-in-Appeal at Annexure-'B' dated 08.04.2025, which would reflect that the appeal is dismissed solely on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the period prescribed under the statute and accordingly, without entering into the merits, the appeal came to be rejected.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the demand of Service Tax was pursuant to the proceedings initiated on the basis of inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

¶4It is submitted that this Court in matters involving identical legal contention where the proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994 were initiated had set aside the order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration taking note of the observations made in the order dated

03.07.2024 in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions.

¶5This 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 while considering the matter for adjudication after remand.

¶6It is contended that the petitioner is not liable and is the recipient of service who was entitled to pay under the Reverse Charge Mechanism.

¶7It is submitted that, as the order passed is an ex-parte order, the matter may be remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice after setting aside the impugned order.

¶8Perused the order of adjudication, which is the Order-in-Original dated 15.05.2024 at Annexure-'A'. It is made clear that the order passed is an ex-parte order insofar as the petitioner has not made out any written reply. Insofar as the Order-in-Appeal at Annexure-'B' dated 08.04.2025, as the said appeal is rejected solely on the ground of appeal being time barred, there is no merger of the Order-in-Original with the Order-in-Appeal at Annexure-'B' dated 08.04.2025.

¶9Perused the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions.

¶10This 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:-

¶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 exemption list under 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 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."

¶11In light of the above, the Order-in-Original at Annexure-'A' dated 15.05.2024 is set aside. As the appeal was rejected solely on the ground of delay, the validity of Order-in-Original is considered in present

proceedings. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. The Authorities to take note of the observations made in the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions as extracted supra, in specific, to the observations made at para-10 of the order as may be applicable. All contentions are kept open.

¶12Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to make out a fresh reply to the show cause notice.

¶13The petitioner to appear before the respondent No.1 on 04.05.2026 without waiting for further notice. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 6891 OF 2026 (T-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI SHASHIDHAR S. 58 YEARS 81, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA 2ND MAIN, 2ND PHASE, W.C. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 010 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. L S KARTHIKEYAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BENGALURU WEST COMMISSIONERATE 1ST FLOOR, TTMC COMPLEX, BMTC BUS STAND, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560 070 2. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS) S-1 AND S-2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR MYSURU-570 011 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT / ORDER Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA /DIRECTION QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-A