M/S Srinivas Engineering Works Vs the Addidtional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

M/S Srinivas Engineering Works Vs the Addidtional… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Order-in-Original and demand notice for service tax, interest and penalty dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure-A) quashed; proceedings restored to the respondent for reconsideration; petitioner to file response, if any, by 22.06.2026; respondent to decide considering all circumstances without non-suiting the petitioner on delay.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an appeal under Section 107 of the Finance Act, 1994, in view of the Co-ordinate Bench decision relied upon by the petitioner. +1 more

Court's answer

Although the petition was filed almost four years after the impugned order, its outcome must turn on the assertion of non-service of notice/absence of opportunity and on the petitioner's proposed statutory contentions; all these circumstances must be considered before a liability is fastened on the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed-in-part: the impugned Order-in-Original and the demand notice for service tax, interest and penalty dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure-A) are quashed, restoring the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration.

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall, without further notice and even without waiting for a certified copy of the order, file its response, if any, with the respondent by 22.06.2026.ratio¶48
The respondent shall consider all the circumstances without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service tax (Finance Act, 1994) — Writ Petition (T-RES) No. 14748 of 2026, decided 01.06.2026 by B M Shyam Prasad, J.: Petition allowed-in-part. Although an appeal lay under Section 107 of the Finance Act, 1994, jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 entertained in reliance on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (W.P. No.11154/2023 and connected matters, dated 03.07.2024). Petitioner asserted the Order-in-Original dated 13.12.2022 (OIO ref. BLR-SOUTH/ADC/83/2022-23, Annexure-A), demanding service tax, interest and penalty, was ex parte without due service of notice or opportunity, founded on information from the Income Tax Department under an inter-board agreement. Court held all circumstances must be considered before liability is fastened, notwithstanding the near four-year delay; impugned order quashed and proceedings restored to the respondent for reconsideration; petitioner to file response by 22.06.2026; respondent directed not to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25451 WP No. 14748 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 14748 OF 2026 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S SRINIVAS ENGINEERING WORKS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. SARAVANAN P S/O SRI. PALANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO. 334/48, SHOP NO. 1, GROUND FLOOR, VENKATESHWARA BUILDING, HUSKUR GATE, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560063

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

PRESENTLY AT SY.NO.31/1A1A1, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, SHANTHIPURA, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 560099.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VENKATESH G., ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25451 WP No. 14748 of 2026

HC-KAR

AND:

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX., BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE, C.R. BULIDING, P.B NO.5400, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU 560001

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED DATE 13.12.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING OIO NO. AND ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS BLR-SOUTH/ADC/83/2022-23 DIN20221257YV0900053E1C, ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25451 WP No. 14748 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order-inOriginal dated 13.12.2022 under the Finance Act, 1994 [for short, ' the Act' ]. The petitioner cannot dispute that this is an order that could be appealed under Section 107 of the Act, but the petitioner has invoked this Court's jurisdiction relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in W.P. No.11154/2023 and connected matters dated 03.07.2024 .

2. Mr. G. Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Order-inOriginal is an ex parte order without due service of notice and is based on an information furnished by the Income Tax Department acting under an agreement signed between the Central Board for

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25451 WP No. 14748 of 2026

HC-KAR

Direct Taxes and the Central Board for Indirect Taxes but without due opportunity. The learned counsel argues that in very similar circumstances based on an undertaking given by the concerned from the department, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.11154/2023 and other matters [such as in W.P.No.20351/2024] restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with due opportunity.

3. Mr. Aravind V. Chavan, a learned Standing counsel who is called upon to accept notice for the respondent, is heard and when queried, the learned counsel submits that the undertaking as recorded in W.P.No.11154/2023 was to ensure that the designated officers looked into complaints of similar nature but with march of time, the jurisdictional Officers, such as the respondent in the present case, are empowered to extend an

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25451 WP No. 14748 of 2026

HC-KAR

opportunity and decide on the merits of the cause that could be shown.

4. This Court finds that the outcome in the

writ petition must turn in the light of the afore circumstances notwithstanding the fact that the petition is filed almost four years from the date of the impugned order because the petitioner asserts that it has not been served with notice or been extended an opportunity othwerwise, and more importantly, the petitioner proposes to rely upon the statutory provisions to contend that the subject transaction does not result in any consequence to pay certain taxes. This Court finds that all these circumstances must be considered before a liability is fastened on the petitioner. Hence the following:

ORDER

[A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned Order-in-Original and the demand notice for service tax, interest and

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:25451 WP No. 14748 of 2026

HC-KAR

penalty dated 13.12.2022 [ Annexure - A ]

are quashed restoring the proceedings to

the respondent for reconsideration.

[B] The petitioner shall, without further notice, file response, if any, with the respondent by 22.06.2026 even without waiting for a certified copy of this order.

[C] The respondent shall consider all the circumstances without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

RB