Mrs. Sameena Ahmed Sharieff Vs Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax.

MRS. SAMEENA AHMED SHARIEFF, AN INDIVIDUAL W/O. MUJEEB AHMED SHARIEFF, RESIDING AT NO.323, FLAT NO.1, 8^TH MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY, JP NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.

¶10

EARLIER RESIDING AT NO.92, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY, BTM LAYOUT II STAGE, BENGALURU-560076.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. VEENA J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by MAMATHA R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SOUTH DIVISION-4, 7^TH FLOOR, A WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19268 WP No. 8638 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL PASSED ON 12.10.2022 (ISSUED ON 14.10.2022) BY THE RESPONDENT IN ORDER SL. NO.266/2022 SD-4 IN F.NO.GEXCOM/SCN/ST/1703/2022CGST-DIV-SD-4-COMMRTE-BENGALURU(S) FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR APRIL 2015 TO MARCH 2016 OF THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has called in question the validity of the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A on the ground that the authority has relied solely upon the inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and in such cases, this Court in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions disposed of the order and made certain observations, remitting the matter for reconsideration. Accordingly, it is submitted that the matter may be remitted for reconsideration, after setting aside the impugned order.

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:19268 WP No. 8638 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

It is also submitted that the demands raised are

¶29

barred by limitation and demands are also raised in respect of sale of immovable property as regards which service tax cannot be levied. It is submitted that no response could be made out, as the petitioner was not in receipt of notice as the property was taken over under the proceedings of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶30

Perused the impugned order. It is noticed that the order is passed on the basis of inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes and accordingly, pursuant to proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994, adjudication is completed and demand for service tax is raised. The order would indicate that petitioner had not filed reply to the show-cause notice nor attended personal hearing and ex-parte order is passed.

¶31

Perused the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in

¶32

W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions.

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:19268 WP No. 8638 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

This Court while disposing of the said petitions

¶37

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:-

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

2) Whether services are covered under negative list ?

¶41

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?

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

11. It is also clarified that disposal of present petitions must not be construed as having adjudicated any of the contentions including

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19268 WP No. 8638 of 2026

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

jurisdiction. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open.

¶48

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.

¶49

13. Accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

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.

¶52

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

¶53

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19268 WP No. 8638 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Column No.2 of the table relating to challenge to Orders-in-Original are disposed off.

¶56

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.

¶57

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

¶58

Taking note of the above and also that the order passed is ex-parte order, it would be appropriate to set aside the Order-in-Original at Annexure-A, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make out reply to the showcause notice and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. The Authorities 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

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:19268 WP No. 8638 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

extracted supra, in specific, to the observations at para-10 of the order as may be applicable. All contentions are kept open.

¶63

Petitioner is at liberty to make out a fresh reply to the show-cause notice. Petitioner to appear before the respondent on 19.05.2026 without waiting for any notice.

¶64

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of .

¶65

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶66

MCR

Mrs. Sameena Ahmed Sharieff v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sameena Ahmed Sharieff v. Assistant 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

Element 14 India Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit

Fortuna Energy Infrastructures Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

The Stems N Leaves International Vs the Superintendent of Central Tax (Gst)

Sri Bal Kishan Agarwal Vs the Assistant Commissioner Central Tax

Sri Bal Kishan Agarwal Vs the Assistant Commissioner Central Tax

M/S Unnathi Digital Edge (P) Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes