- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36002 WP No. 13583 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 13583 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: MR. MANU PARTHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO. 25, OPP. WILSON GARDEN 9TH CROSS, 25 HOSUR MAIN ROAD AREKEMPANAHALLI WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU – 560 027 REPRESENTED BY INDIVIDUAL MR. MANU PARTHASARATHY. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANIRUDHA R.J.NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NEW DELHI – 110 001. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36002 WP No. 13583 of 2025 2. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE TTMC/BMTC BUS STAND COMPLEX FIRST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU – 560 070. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX WEST DIVISION-5, GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE BMTC BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR BANASHANKARI, KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, CGC FOR R1; SRI JEEVAN J.NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. 179/2024-25 ST DATED 19/09/2024 ENCLOSED AS ANNX-C.; HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. 179/2024-25 ST DATED 19/09/2024 ENCLOSED AS ANNX-C, WAS PASSED WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36002 WP No. 13583 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “a. Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and set aside the impugned order bearing No.179/2024-25 ST dated 19.09.2024 enclosed as Annexure C. Issued by Respondent No.3. b. Issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and to hold that the impugned order bearing No.179/2024-25 ST dated 19.09.2024 enclosed as Annexure C, issued by Respondent No.3 was passed without the authority of law. c. Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus by setting aside impugned order bearing No.179/2024- 25 ST dated 19.09.2024 enclosed as Annexure C, issued by Respondent No.3 and remitting the matter back to Respondent no. 3 to ascertain specifically the aspect of rendition of taxable service in accordance with law; d. Issue any other direction or grant any other relief, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice. e. Issue a direction to provide for the cost of this petition.” 2. Heard Sri Anirudha R.J.Nayak, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Anuparna Bordoloi, learned Central - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36002 WP No. 13583 of 2025 Government Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands answered by the judgment rendered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/S KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, in W.P.No.11154/2023 AND CONNECTED MATTERS, disposed on 03.07.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents in unison would not dispute the position of law, except the fact that the matter should be remitted to the stage of the submission of reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner. 5. The co-ordinate bench in the aforesaid W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected matters, considering the entire spectrum of the law and issue, passed the following order: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36002 WP No. 13583 of 2025 “10. The 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 ? 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. 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. 13. Accordingly, the following: ORDER 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. Insofar as such writ petitions as detailed in Column 2 of the table relating to challenge to Orders-in-Original, in light of the discussion made above, the Orders-in- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36002 WP No. 13583 of 2025 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. 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-in-original in question would also receive the same treatment, i.e. be set aside as per the directions made above. Wherever demands have been made pursuant to the impugned orders, such proceedings are also set aside.” In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the coordinate bench and that the fact the petitioner is similarly placed, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to respondent No.3 – Authority. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed and remitted back to respondent No.3 - Authority. b. The impugned order dated 19.09.2024, at Annexure ‘C’, stands quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36002 WP No. 13583 of 2025 c. The petitioner shall now submit his reply to the impugned show cause notice - Annexure ‘A’, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. d. Respondent No.3 shall, from the stage of submitting reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner, consider the same and pass necessary orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the afore-quoted judgment of the co-ordinate bench. e. It is open to the authority to regulate its procedure and take the issue to its logical conclusion. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12 CT:SS