Shri. Narasimhalu Naidu Vs the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax

SHRI. NARASIMHALU NAIDU S/O VENKATAPATHI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 04, BAIRAVESWARA NILAYA, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, AGS LAYOUT, SUBRAMANYA PURA POST BENGALURU 560061.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY MS. LOCHANA S BABU.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX O/O THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, BMTC BUILDING, BANASHANKARI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU 560070.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL TAX ADJUDICATION, O/O THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:29252 WP No. 17693 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, BMTC BUILDING, BANASHANKARI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU 560070.

¶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 (I) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED 11.12.2025 BEARING ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO. 134/2025-26 SERVICE TAX AND DIN 20251257YU0000001489 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1. (ANNEXURE-A) AND; (II) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO PROVIDE THE PETITIONER WITH A COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.04.2021 BEARING SCN NO. 65/2021-22 AE-IV AND FILE NO. GEXCOM/AE/VRFN/TPD/466/2021-AE-O/O PR COMMR-CGST BENGALURU(W)-AE-IV ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1, AND; (III) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER IN FRESH ADJUDICATION FROM THE STAGE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WHILE PROVIDING PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND RESERVING LIBERTY TO THE PETITIONER TO URGE ALL CONTENTIONS.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:29252 WP No. 17693 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

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

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order-inOriginal dated 11.12.2025 [Annexure-A] under Section 73[2] of the Finance Act, 1994, and the petitioner's grievance with this order, at this stage, is based on an alleged procedural irregularity viz., in failing to furnish a copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2021.

¶31

The petitioner in the writ petition in W.P. No.21265/2023 has called in question a similar adjudication order dated 31.07.2023 for the same tax period. This Court has disposed of this petition and other similar petitions on 16.07.2024 restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with the opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. It is during the pendency of this petition in W.P. No.21265/2023 that the Show Cause Notice dated 21.04.2021 and the

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:29252 WP No. 17693 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Intimation for personal hearing on 24.01.2025 and 07.02.2025 are issued.

¶36

The petitioner's case is that the petitioner's representative appeared before the first respondent and made a request for a copy of the Show Cause Notice and that the representative followed that with a formal written request on 10.03.2026 but the petitioner is not issued with Show Cause Notice. The petitioner alleges that there is a denial of a complete opportunity to show cause against the conclusion of the proceedings. Ms. Lochana S Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Aravind V Chavan, a learned standing counsel for the respondents who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard.

¶37

The first respondent has concluded the proceedings opining that the petitioner has failed to show cause despite opportunity extended, and in fact, the first respondent has referred to the decisions of the

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:29252 WP No. 17693 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Apex Court to assert that extending opportunities when there is failure to respond would be exasperating. However, what emerges is that a formal request is made and there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner did not show cause despite being served with a copy of the Show Cause Notice. This Court opines, that there is a ‘ procedural irregularity’ resulting in lack of opportunity. Hence the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

[a] The petition is allowed in part.

¶44

[b] The impugned Order-in-Original dated 11.12.2025 [Annexure-A] is quashed restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for due consideration calling upon the petitioner to appear with the first respondent without further notice on 13.07.2026.

¶45