Hotel Kateel International Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Central Tax

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36058 WP No. 19356 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19356 OF 2025 (T-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HOTEL KATEEL INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT 1932 A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SHRI ROHITH KUMAR KATEEL S/O SHRI BALAKRISHNA KATEEL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 121/2 WARD NO. 2, VENDORS LANE MARKET ROAD, KARKALA – 574 104 EMAIL ID: [email protected] PHONE NO: +91 89714 70774

¶9

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI PRADYUMNA HEJIB, ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CENTRAL TAX MANGALORE EAST DIVISION C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVAR MANGALURU – 575 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36058 WP No. 19356 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

GROUND FLOOR

¶18

NO.71, CLUB ROAD BELAGAVI – 590 001.

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX, KARKALA RANGE

¶20

KARKALA, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 104.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI ARAVIND V.CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (A) QUASH ORDERIN-ORIGINAL BEARING SL. NO. MLR-EXCUS-000-UD-ASC-MR035-2022-23 (DIN 20230557YZ0000333CD2) DATED 23.05.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT; (B) ORDER-IN-APPEAL BEARING NO. MLREXCUS-000-APP-AS-100-2024-25 DATED 08.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶28

prayers:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:36058 WP No. 19356 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

“ WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/to quash:

¶33

(a) Order-in-Original bearing Sl. No. MLR-EXCUS-000UD-ASC-MR-035-2022-23 [DIN 20230557YZ0000333CD2] dated 23.05.2023 [Annexure-A] passed by the First Respondent;

¶34

(b) Order-in-Appeal bearing No. MLR-EXCUS-000-APPAS-100-2024-25 dated 08.01.2025 [Annexure-B] passed by the Second Respondent;

¶35

(c) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶36

Heard Sri. Pradyumna Hejib, learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Aravind V Chavan, learned counsel appearing for respondents and perused the material on record.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis is akin to what is decided by the Coordinate Bench in the case of KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST¹ . He would submit that several of the petitions were disposed in the same terms.

¶39

1 (2024) 25 Centax 382 (Kar.)

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:36058 WP No. 19356 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Learned counsel for the Revenue would not dispute

¶44

the position.

¶45

I, therefore, deem it appropriate to notice what the Coordinate Bench has held in the case of KARNATAKA

¶46

CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF

¶47

CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU EAST supra , which reads as follows:

¶48

“10. The officers while disposing off the petitions to keep in mind the following:

¶49

1. Whether petitioners do not qualify under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 ?

¶50

1. Whether services are covered under negative list ?

¶51

1. 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?

¶52

1. Whether the person is liable to remit service tax in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) read with applicable notification?

¶53

1. Whether claims are barred by limitation in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court ?

¶54

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.

¶55

5 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:36058 WP No. 19356 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

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.

¶59

Accordingly, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

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.

¶62

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-inOriginal 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.

¶63

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.

¶64

Wherever demands have been made pursuant to the impugned orders, such proceedings are also set aside.”

¶65

6 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:36058 WP No. 19356 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

In the light of the submissions so made, the petition

¶69

deserves to be disposed, in the same terms as is done by the Coordinate Bench in the judgment quoted supra .

¶70

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

a. The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶73

b. Order-in-Original dated 23-05-2023 [AnnexureA] passed by the 1^st respondent and Order-inAppeal dated 08-01-2025 [Annexure-B] passed by the 2^nd respondent stand quashed.

¶74

c. The matter is remitted back for reconsideration from the stage of show-cause notice afresh, to the hands of the respondents, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in the case of KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST supra.

¶75