Mr. Venu Narayanaswamy v. The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax

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."

¶6In light of the above, the order-in-original at Annexure-'A' is set aside. 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 at para-10 of the order as may be applicable. All contentions are kept open.

¶7Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to make out a fresh reply to the show cause notice.

¶8The petitioner to appear before the respondent on

25.05.2026 without waiting for any notice.

¶9In light of setting aside of the order at Annexure-A, respondent authorities forthwith to rescind the instructions made to the bank pursuant to recovery proceedings.

¶10Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:22361 WP(No.(11008(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( RDDATED(THIS(THE(23 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(11008(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:( 1., MR.,VENU,NARAYANASWAMY, S/O,P.,NARAYANASWAMY,,, AGED,ABOUT,40,YEARS,,, PROPRIETOR,OF,, M/S.,SRI,LAKSHMI,VENKATESHWARA,ENTERPRISES, HAVING,OFFICE,AT,, CLEANING,AND,SERVICES,, ND THNO.,53,,2 ,CROSS,ROAD,,7 ,BLOCK,, NAGARABHAVI,STAGE,2,,, BENGALURU,-,560,072, …,PETITIONER, Digitally (BY,SRI.,YATHISH,S.,ADVOCATE),signedtiby PRAKASH0N Location: AND: HIGH COURT0OF KARNATAKA 1., THE,PRINCIPAL,COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX, CENTRAL,TAX,,, BANGALORE,WEST,GST,COMMISSION,,, ST1 ,FLOOR,TTMC,COMPLEX,,, BMTC,BUS,STAND,,BANASHANKARI,, BENGALURU-560,070., 2., THE,SUPERINTENDENT,OF,CENTRAL,TAX,, RANGE-EWD7,, WEST DIVISION- COMMISSIONERATE 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUS COMPLEX, SADAN, KORAMANGAL, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560 070. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I) DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COPY OF ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED 29.02.2024 BEARING ORDER SL. 143/2023-24 AND DIN 20240257YU000000E7BB FOR THE FY 2016-17 AND 2017-18 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, HEREIN MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A 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 Learned Counsel Sri.Aravind Chavan accepts notice for the respondents. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A whereby the authority has adjudicated in terms of the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 and held that the petitioner is liable for payment of service tax and raised a demand. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner would submit that the order is passed on the basis of inputs received from Central Board of Direct Taxes and on the basis of declarations made in the Income Tax Returns. It is submitted that in such circumstances where proceedings are initiated under the Finance Act and demands are raised as regards service tax based on income tax returns, this court in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions has set aside such orders and remitted the matter for consideration in light of the observations made above. 3. It is further contended that the petitioner is involved in the activity of solid waste management and provided such services to the BBMP and such activity is exempted from the purview of service tax under Sl.No.25(a) of Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. It is further submitted that the order passed is an exparte order and petitioner may be permitted to make out reply to the show-cause notice and accordingly, the matter may be remitted for consideration. 4. Perused the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions. 5. 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. Needl