Allowed

Mr. R.Karunakar Reddy v. The Commissioner of Central Tax

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023WP/9269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana set aside an order confirming a service tax demand due to violation of principles of natural justice. The court held that service of the show cause notice and notice for personal hearing on the petitioner's brother or address did not constitute proper service.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order-in-Original dated 02.11.2022 is set aside and matter remanded to Commissioner of Central Tax for fresh decision. Petitioner directed to file reply within 3 weeks.

Mr. R.Karunakar Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Central… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

h i i I

¶2

[³³¹¹ ]

¶3

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9269 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mr. R.Karunakar Reddy, S/o. Mr. Ravula Krishna Reddy, aged 47 years, Occupation. Business, Office. Flat no 2147, Kanayapally Village, Kothakota Mandal, Wanaparthy - 509 380, Mahbubnagar District, Telangana. Residence. Flat no 203, Vaishnavi Grands, Street No.. 4, near Punjab National Bank, Kakatiya Nagar, Habsiguda, Secunderabad, Hyderabad500 007' Telangana'

¶10

...pETrroNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Commissioner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posneft Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ram Kote, Hyderabad - 500 001, Telangana.

¶13

The Superintendent ofCentral Tax, Wanaparthy GST Range, Mahabubnagar GST Division, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ram Kote, Hyderabad - 500 001 , Telangana.

¶14

The Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, Mahabubnagar GST Division, Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, Hyderabad - 500 028, Telangana'

¶15

...RESP.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ of^Mandamus or any other appropriate^Writ, Order or Direction,^{declaring that the Order- in - OriginalNo.. HYD-EXCUS-004-COM-} 026-2022-23,^{dated02.11 .2O22 (setted on the Petitioner on1 8.02.2023),passed} by the^{1st Respondent,for the period 2016 - 17 to 2017 - 18 (up to June, 2017),} vide^{DlN. 20221156YQO00000C7F8, under the provisionsof FinanceAct, 1994,} as arbitrary,^{illegal, bad in law, void-ab-initio, violativeof the principlesof natural} justice apart from being violative of Articles¹ 4,¹⁹⁽¹ Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of^{lndia,and consequentlyset aside the same in the interests of} justice

¶17

lA NO:^'l OF 2023

¶18

Petition unde- liection 151 CPC praying that in the :i,currstances stated in the affidavit filoc tn support of the petition, the Higr Court may be pleased to stay all further proc ;edings, including any recovery, f)ursue n1 to the Order - in - Original No.. FIYDI EX(lUS-004-COlVl-026- 2022-23, dzrtecl 02. t1 ito22 (served on the Petitioner on 18 )2'..2023), passed by the 1st Resp,1p66p1. for the period 20'16 - 17 lo 2017 - 18 (u ) lo June, 2017), vide DlN.20221156Y()000tr00C7F8, under the provrsions of [:ir arrce Act, 1994, pending disposal tf the atrove Writ Petition

¶19

Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRl. A.V.A. SIVA KARTHIKEYA llE P SRI. D. VENKATA PADI,IA.'A

¶20

Counsel for the Res oondents: SRI. DOMINIC FERNANDES^'sr:nior standing counsel for CB lC )

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{UJJALBHI,IYAN} AND

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

¶25

Writ Petition No.9269 of 2o23

¶26

ORDER:^(Per the^{Hon'ble the ChiefJustcelJijalBhusan)}

¶27

Heard Mr.A.V.A.Siva Karthikeya, learned counsel representing Ms.D.Venkata^{Padmaja,learned counselfor} the petitioner and Mr.Dominic Fernandes,^learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the^respondents.

¶28

By frling this petition under Article 226 of^the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality^and validity of the Order-in-Original dated 02.11.2022^passed by the first respondent confirming^demandof Rs.2,04,86,250.00 as service tax for the^period 2016-17ⁱⁿ terms of Section 73(21 of the^{Finance Act, 1994 besides levy} of interest and imposition^{of penalty.}

¶29

On 10.04 .2023, the following^{order was passed by}

¶30

this Court:

¶31

"In this uit^petition challenge^{hosbeen made} to the order-in-oiginal dated^{O2. 1} 1.2022^passedby respondent No. 1.

)

T'trc chcLlk:nc1e has been made^{ttn tLrct'ror trc]} , hrrl I u shortr cr-tusr: rtotice^{precedingtl e t ,1ert} Ltiqirr^r.l tras ttot seruecl uport the^petiti<tner-

¶36

O'r going through the^{inpug'rccJortler itt} oiq ,' rl, u)e fuld that respondent^{No. 1 hasr e'L oraerl} thrtt .:hcut cause rrctice dated^{18.tO.-)()l)lu as} i.ssr,e: lc the seruice^{prouider(petitiorter).'nltt'tzis} rt.o :;lc tement therein indicating that^{tlesorTlr' Iros} serL'ea.

¶37

l4ere'issuantce of shou cause notic:t: or^u)tlce of per ;onal heairry is^not adequate.^{Th<zn tlic=s} r.uottlc,l. ltltutz to be serued upon the^{seruiceptro irler.} ' h^{re,quest of Mr. DominicFernardes,'ettnu)d.} cour,.s(l Jbr the respondents^{list again ot 18.C4 20-l'3} tct oLtto'n instructions-

¶38

'.ili then, n.o coerciue sfeps shcll be^rak<'rt e'! ai)1 :; t \e petitioner. "

¶39

in tne hearing today,^{Mr.Donlinic I'ertrandes,} learned Star ding counsel submits,^{on tht: basisof u'rittcn} instruct-iotrs that show^{causenotice datecl 18 , 0.2021 was} served uporl lhe petitioner^{throughhis brot l(: r.Insofar} notice 1-egal', lir-rg personal hearing,^{the samr: rvz:s s;ent bv} register,-'d p( )st to the same address^{as provicir:d by the} Income Ta;< I^)e partment^{which is also the prir-tr::pirl} F'lace^of business ol t rt' petitioner^{as per GSTRegistratic'rr}

¶40

, I

¶41

Insofar service of show cause notice is concerned, petitioner is an individual dealer and notice issued to the petitioner which was served upon his brother, cannot be said to be proper service of notice. As regards notice of personal hearing, there is nothing on record or any acknowledgment which has been hled by the respondents regarding such service of notice.

¶42

Therefore, we are constrained to hold that neither the show cause notice nor the notice of personal hearing was served upon the petitioner.

¶43

That being the position, impugned Order_in_ Original dated O2.1L2O22 suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, Order_in_ Original dated 02.11.2022 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the frle of first respondent for fresh decision in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is now aware of the show cause notice as well as the Order_ in-Original, he shall file reply to the same before the first respondent within a period of three (3) weeks from today. On receipt of such reply, respondent No.l shall proceed

r....G

r,i itjr I r(' r ri ttcr anrl thercafter pass fl-eslt o;-cler irt accorder nc('^{</sup> rth la\, after^gir. ing due oppor-tuni v^{of hearing} to thc p t-'ti t ir nr:r}

¶48

B. Nr:r', liess to szLy, if the petitioner does not iile lhe reply, it rr r u ld be open to respondent No. I to 1rass appropriat': r r<ier in accordat-rce with law.

¶49

IS 9. .['itir the above observations, writ 1t:tition

¶50

dispose<1 ol

¶51

Miscella n,:ous applications pending, rf arrv, shall

¶52

stand closed I lowever, there shall be no order as to^r:osts

¶53

SDLA.V.S.PRASAD ASSI S'l-At\lT REGISTRAR

¶54

//TRUE COPY// l"

¶55

S,ECTION OFFICER

¶56

To, 1. The Commissi^{>ner of Central Tax, Ranga Reddy GST C lnlmil;sionerate,} ' P;;""tt Bhr; i, titat< Roao, Ram Kotel Hyde.rabq{ - 50() ()01' Telangana'

¶57

2 ih;' sr;;;i;iel^{<i,riGr cLniialrax, wanafarthv q sr]1?} !!E' J{1L19'?1119" -csrDivision,tangaReddyGSTCommissionerate,Posn()ttbnavan'lllaK Road, Ram^(o e^{Hyderabad - 500 001 ,-T-elangqla}

¶58

1. ii;il;;iy^{I p ssisiiniCommissioneror centrbt Tax,Mahabulrnag^arGST} - oi"L[ii itnq iii;ddt GsT commissionerate, Hvderab:rd - 500 028' Telanoana.

¶59

o;; ic i;^{M,': . I). VENKATA PADMAJA' Advocate[oPU(]l} s. one CC^{to S;RlDoMlNlCFERNANDES(Senior Slandin(|(,ourSel Tor UtJlU)} toPUCl

¶60

Two^{CD CoPie I} BM

t I

HIGH COUR-'

DATED:0810f 12023

ORDER

WP.No.9269 ot 2023

-z=
-4 '" r{r: s ra 15'
'oe'
I a/ {4.
/-- 'a
? 6 ll,lN 2U7.3
t.t;':,<br>: r, .'..,,,'

¶68

DISPOSING OI: THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COIiTS

¶69

?
5 {;r)

Mr. R.Karunakar Reddy v. The Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. R.Karunakar Reddy v. The Commissioner of Central Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P. Rami Reddy Vs Income Tax Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Jyothi Bhagat Vs Union of India, Rep. by Secy.,Ministry of Finance N.Delhiandan

B.Radha Krishna Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

J. Sadaiah Vs The Commissioner of Intermediate Education

Aluvala Kotaiah Vs The District Co. Operative Officer