Mr. G N Krishna v. Additional Commissioner of Central Tax,

ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO. 59/2025-26 SERVICE TAX AND DIN. 2025075YU0000318229 DATED

28.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-A) 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

Learned Counsel Sri.Aravind Chavan accepts notice for the respondents.

¶2The petitioner has assailed the validity of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A. Petitioner submits that the order-in-original is based on adjudicated liability of the petitioner relating to service tax on the basis of inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and on the basis of figures appearing in the TDS statement, Form 26AS.

¶3It is further submitted that service provided by the petitioner was examined in light of Entry 13 of

Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and such aspect was not taken note by the authority in a proper manner.

¶4It is further submitted that this court while dealing with the cases where adjudication has been completed and demand of service tax raised primarily relying on income tax returns has remitted back the matters for fresh consideration in light of observations made in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions.

¶5It is accordingly submitted that on parity, identical order may be passed.

¶6Learned Counsel Arvind Chavan submits that petitioner was heard in the matter.

¶7However, the observations made in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions requires consideration.

¶8This 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?

¶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."

¶9In 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.

¶10Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to make out a fresh reply to the show cause notice.

¶11The petitioner to appear before the respondent on 25.05.2026 without waiting for any notice.

¶12Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:23394 WP(No.(13243(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(13243(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:( 1., MR.,G,N,KRISHNA, (PWD,CONTRACTOR), AGED,67,YEARS, NO.1011/1354,,MATHRU,KUTEERA,, THGROUND,FLOOR,,8 ,,CROSS,, ST ND1 ,H,MAIN,,GIRINAGAR,2 ,PHASE,, BANGALORE,,, KARNATAKA-560,085., …,PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,VENKATANARAYANA,G.M.,,ADVOCATE), AND:Digitally signedtiby PRAKASH0N Location: 1., ADDITIONAL,COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX,, HIGH0COURT OFFICE,OF,THE,PRINCIPAL,COMMISSIONER,OF,OF KARNATAKA CENTRAL,TAX,,, GST,WEST,COMMISSIONERATE,,, BMTC,BUILDING,,FIRST,FLOOR,,, BANASHANKARI,,, KANAKAPURA,ROAD,,, BENGALURU,-,560,070, …,RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,ARAVIND,V.,CHAVAN,,ADVOCATE), THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE