Sri. Sanna Thimmappa Umesh, v. The Additional Commisioner of Central Tax

e -e1e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:7943 WP(No.(3357(of(2026 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(10 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(S(SUNIL(DUTT(YADAV( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(3357(OF(2026((T-RES) BETWEEN:(

1., SRI.,SANNA,THIMMAPPA,UMESH,, SON,OF,LATE,SRI.,SANNA,HANUMAPPA,THIMMAPPA, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,, THNO.,1750,,6 ,MAIN,ROAD,,, ND2 ,STAGE,,GAYATHRINAGAR,,, RAJAJINAGAR,,, BANGALORE-560,010, REPRESENTED,BY,HIS,, SPECIAL,POWER,OF,ATTORNEY,HOLDER,, SRI.,R.,CHANDRU,,, S/O.,LATE,SRI.RAMAPPA,,, Digitally AGED,ABOUT,64,YEARS,,, signedtiby AHUJA,CHAMBERS,,VIJAYA0P NDLocation: FLAT,NO.204,,2 ,FLOOR,,, HIGH0COURT NO.,1,,KUMARAKRUPA,ROAD,,,OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560,001, …,PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,ANNAMALAI,S.,,ADVOCATE), AND:

1., THE,ADDITIONAL,COMMISIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX, BENGALURU,WEST,COMMISSIONERATE,,, BMTC,BUILDING,,FIRST,FLOOR,,, e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:7943 WP(No.(3357(of(2026 BANASHANKARI,,, KANAKAPURA,ROAD,,, BENGALURU,-,560,070,

2., THE,JOINT,COMMISSIONER,OF,CENTRAL,TAX,, BENGALURU,WEST,COMMISSIONERATE,,, BMTC,BUILDING,,FIRST,FLOOR,,, BANASHANKARI,,, KANAKAPURA,ROAD,,, BENGALURU,-,560,070, …,RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,AKASH,SHETTY,,ADVOCATE), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,SHOW, CAUSE, NOTICE, DATED, 27.04.2022, BEARING, SCN, SL, NO., 63/2022-23,,DIN-20220457YU00008184,4E/464/22,ISSUED,BY, THE,RESPONDENT,NO.1,FOR,THE,PERIOD,OCTOBER,2016,TO, JUNE,2017,HEREIN,MARKED,AND,REFERRED,AS,ANNEXURE-A, AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,S,SUNIL,DUTT,YADAV, ORAL(ORDER Petitioner, has, sought, for, setting, aside, of, the, show, cause,notice,at,Annexure-A,as,well,as,the,order-in-original, issued,under,Section,73(2),of,the,Finance,Act,,1994,copy, of,which,is,produced,at,Annexure,B.,

¶2It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings under the Finance Act, fastening the liability to pay service tax is only on the basis of the details found in the income tax returns. It is submitted that this Court in the order passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 disposed of on

03.07.2024 has taken note of the initiation of proceedings under the Finance Act insofar as service tax is concerned, only on the basis of declaration in the income tax returns and after framing certain questions, remanded the matter back to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. It is submitted that in the present matter also, a similar order may be passed remitting the matter back to the stage of reply to the show cause notice.

¶3Even on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no service tax liability as the petitioner is involved in supply of manpower and the recipient is required to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism. It is further submitted that the period of show cause notice has been exceeded by levying service

tax for the extended period which is not the subject matter of the show cause notice.

¶4Sri. Akash Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 is a matter of record and the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶5Perused the order-in-original as well as the show cause notice. Prima facie, the show cause notice would make out that the demand for service tax is on the premise of declaration made in the income tax returns. Para 9 and 10 of the order passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 reads as follows: "9. Needless to state, a bare perusal of all the petitions reveals that the petitioners have raised various contentions which are required to be referred back for consideration by the appropriate authorities so that officers concerned may take note of the same while disposing off the petitions at the stage of post show-cause notice.

¶10The officers while disposing off the petitions to keep in mind the following: 1) Whether petitioners do not qualify under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 ? 2) Whether services are covered under negative list ? 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 ? 4) Whether the person is liable to remit service tax in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d) read with applicable notification? 5) Whether claims are barred by limitation in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court ?"

¶6Accordingly the order-in-original at Annexure-A is set aside. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the show cause notice. 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 extracted above, in specific, to the observations at para 10

of the order as may be applicable. The jurisdictional contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice relates to the period of October, 2016 to June, 2017 while the order refers even to the period of April, 2016 to September, 2016 which was not part of the show cause notice is an aspect to be looked into by the authorities. All other contentions are kept open.

¶7The petitioner is at liberty to make out fresh reply to the show cause notice apart from the reply already made. Petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 26.02.2026 without waiting for any fresh notice.

¶8Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP