M/S. the Skylark Security Services, Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S. THE SKYLARK SECURITY SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI. RAVICHANDRA K., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.398, 2^ND FLOOR, 10^TH CROSS, 27^TH MAIN, 1S SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. THIRUMALESH M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BANGALORE SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE, C.R. BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU 560001.

¶15

&RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL DATED 13.01.2023 PASSED IN ORDER NO. 23-24/ST/COMMR/2022-23 BEARING DIN NO. 2023015700000022272B FOR THE TAX PERIODS IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2015-16 AND 2016-17 UNDER SECTIONS 70, 73(1), 75, 77 AND 78 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1994 LEVYING TAX, INTEREST AND PENALTY, PASSED BY THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:15560 WP No. 4104 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN THE CASE OF THE PETITIONER-ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has sought for setting aside of the Order-in-Original dated 13.01.2023 at Annexure-A. It is the case of the petitioner that the Order-in-Original has resulted in liability for payment of Service Tax solely based on data received from the Income Tax Department.

¶24

It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.11154/2023 and other connected matters wherein service tax liability was sought to be imposed on the basis of inputs from Income Tax Department, has set aside the orders and remitted the matter back for reconsideration before the competent authority. It is further submitted that petitioner was unable to take his stand insofar as show-cause notice is concerned and if an opportunity is

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15560 WP No. 4104 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

given, petitioner would demonstrate that the claim by the department is time barred.

¶28

Perused the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions.

¶29

This Court while disposing of the said petitions

¶30

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:-

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

2) Whether services are covered under negative list ?

¶34

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?

¶35

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

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:15560 WP No. 4104 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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

¶40

11. 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.

¶41

12. 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.

¶42

13. Accordingly, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

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.

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:15560 WP No. 4104 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Insofar as such writ petitions as detailed in Column 2 of the table relating to challenge to Orders-inOriginal, 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.

¶49

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-inoriginal in question would also receive the same treatment, i.e. be set aside as per the directions made above.

¶50

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

¶51

Taking note of the above observations, the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A is set aside. Matter is

¶52

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15560 WP No. 4104 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

remitted to the stage of reply to show-cause notice. The authority 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 take note of the observations at para-10 of the order as

¶55

may be applicable. All other contentions are kept open.

¶56

Petitioner is at liberty to make out a fresh reply

¶57

to the show-cause notice. Petitioner to appear before the respondent on 16.04.2026 without waiting for any further notice.

¶58

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶59

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶60

MCR

M/S. the Skylark Security Services, v. the Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. the Skylark Security Services, v. the Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girigowda S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Jagadish Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Smt. R Chayadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ghani Vs the Commissioner of Central Tax

M/S Lakshmi Engineering Works Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

M/S Shirahatti Basavanneppa Parameshwar Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax