Appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition regarding service tax liability on unclaimed penalties and retention monies. Court noted subsequent circulars and CESTAT judgment vindicated contentions but directed petitioner to appear before authorities for hearing before deciding merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:9746-DB WA No. 3250 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 3250 OF 2018 (T-TAR)
BETWEEN:
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. V RAGHUSAMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI BHANU MURTHY J S AND
SRI C R RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATES)
AND:
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, OSD (CX-6), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERLAGI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP 62960/2016 DATED 22/10/2018 INCLUDING THE IMPOSITION OF COSTS THEREIN AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY POONACHA. J. , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed challenging the order dated 22.10.2018 passed in WP.No.62960/2016, whereunder the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
(PC), dated 20.6.2016. In the writ petition the petitioner has also challenged the virus of Section 66E(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 as unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 246 and 265 as well as Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The notification No.20/2014 ST dated 16.9.2014 as well as the circular bearing No.985/09/2014-CS, dated 22.9.2014 have also been challenged.
1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CESTAT’
2 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 549 (Tri. – Del.)
Government has decided not to challenge the order of the CESTAT rendered in the case of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.2 .
would also be in receipt of retention monies and penalties recovered under various agreements.
respondents Sri Jeevan J.Neeralgi submits that the contentions put forth by the petitioner in the present writ appeal are being
put forth for the first time and there is no adjudication regarding the same by the learned Single Judge. He further submits that the circulars dated 3.8.2022 and 28.2.2023 being relied on by the petitioner are in the nature of subsequent events and the same were not available to the authorities when the show cause notice dated 20.6.2016 which is impugned in the writ petition was issued.
NC: 2024:KHC:9746-DB WA No. 3250 of 2018
foundational basis on which the show cause dated 20.6.2016 has been issued.
appeal is disposed of by directing:
No costs.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contentions regarding service tax liability on unclaimed penalties and retention monies raised for the first time in appeal can be considered based on subsequent circulars.
Whether the writ appeal challenging vires of Service Tax provisions impugned below should be allowed in light of recent circulars and CESTAT judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., v. Commr. Of C. Ex. & S.T., RaipurReferred¶32
2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 549 (Tri. – Del.)
M/S. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX LTU (AUDIT)
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS
UNION OF INDIA
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LTU
C.M. POONACHA
S.G.PANDIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
