Facts of the Case

  • The Petitioner's Profile: The petitioner, M/s. Access Developers Private Limited, is a registered corporate entity incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, engaged in business operations from its registered office in Bengaluru.
  • Origin of the Dispute: The dispute arose when the Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (South Division-4, Bengaluru South Commissionerate), passed an Order-in-Original dated September 9, 2022. This order created a substantial tax liability under the Finance Act, 1994.
  • The Basis of Demand: The impugned assessment and subsequent demand were drawn entirely on the basis of cross-departmental information sharing. The Income Tax Department shared financial data with the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) under an active bilateral data-sharing agreement signed between the CBDT and CBIC.
  • Consequential Recovery: Following the Order-in-Original, the department initiated coercive recovery mechanisms, issuing a Recovery Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated January 19, 2026, targeting the petitioner’s assets/accounts to recover tax, cess, interest, and penalty.
  • Delayed Writ Remediation: Aggrieved by both the ex-parte assessment order and the recovery notice, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka in 2026—nearly four years after the passing of the original assessment order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an Order-in-Original when an alternative, efficacious statutory appellate remedy is available under Section 107 of the Act.
  2. Whether an ex-parte tax demand order passed solely on the basis of data shared by the Income Tax Department (CBDT-CBIC agreement) without actual service of notice or providing an effective opportunity of hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
  3. Whether the significant delay of nearly four years in approaching the High Court should non-suit the petitioner from seeking equitable relief under writ jurisdiction if it establishes a total absence of due opportunity.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • Total Breach of Natural Justice: The petitioner argued that the impugned Order-in-Original was strictly ex-parte. They strongly asserted that no statutory show-cause notice or personal hearing notices were ever duly served upon them before creating the tax liability.
  • Flawed Basis of Adjudication: It was submitted that the department mechanically fastened the tax liability by relying entirely on raw financial information pushed by the Income Tax Department under the CBDT-CBIC agreement. The revenue authorities failed to independently examine whether the underlying transactions actually attracted service tax liability.
  • Non-Applicability of Tax Provisions: The petitioner contended that they propose to rely upon specific statutory provisions to prove that the subject transactions do not yield any taxable consequence or liability to pay the alleged taxes.
  • Parity with Co-ordinate Bench Precedents: The petitioner’s counsel placed heavy reliance on a judgment delivered by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (W.P. No. 11154/2023) and related matters like W.P. No. 20351/2024. They argued that under identical circumstances of data-driven ex-parte orders, the court had consistently restored matters back to the department for fair reconsideration.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Availability of Alternative Remedy: The Revenue, represented by its standing counsel, initially pointed out that the impugned Order-in-Original is an appealable order under Section 107 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority instead of bypassing the statutory mechanism via a writ petition.
  • Clarification on Administrative Mechanisms: Regarding the precedent cited by the petitioner (M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust), the respondent's counsel clarified that the department's earlier undertaking was intended to ensure that designated higher officers looked into systemic complaints of this nature.
  • Sufficiency of Jurisdictional Powers: The respondent argued that with the march of time, the jurisdictional officers (such as the respondent in this case) are fully empowered to directly extend a fresh opportunity of hearing to assessees and decide the entire cause on its factual and legal merits if sufficient cause is shown.

Court Order & Findings

  • Primacy of Due Opportunity: The High Court observed that while the petitioner could technically appeal under Section 107, the facts demanded an extraordinary intervention because the petitioner asserted a complete lack of notice and an absence of due opportunity.
  • Liability Cannot Be Fastened Unfairly: The Court emphasized that before any financial or tax liability is fastened on a citizen or corporate entity, all essential legal, factual, and statutory circumstances must be fully verified and considered.
  • Condonation of Delay for Substantive Justice: The Court held that the writ petition must turn in favor of the petitioner notwithstanding the fact that it was filed almost four years from the date of the impugned order. The delay cannot be a tool to overlook a fundamental breach of natural justice.
  • Final Directions:
    • The Court allowed the writ petition in part and quashed the Order-in-Original dated September 9, 2022, along with the consequential recovery notice dated January 19, 2026.
    • The entire proceedings were restored to the file of the respondent for fresh reconsideration.
    • The petitioner was directed to submit a comprehensive response to the department by August 29, 2026, without waiting for a formal certified copy of the court order.
    • The respondent was strictly ordered to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay.

Important Clarification

Key Legal Takeaway: This ruling clarifies that tax assessments cannot be finalized purely on the automated cross-matching of CBDT and CBIC data streams without giving the taxpayer a real, verifiable opportunity to explain the transactions. Furthermore, where an order is found to be deeply embedded in a violation of natural justice (such as a complete lack of service of notice), High Courts can exercise their discretion under Article 226 to set aside the order and waive the limitation delays, ensuring the assessee is heard on merits.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107 of the Finance Act, 1994 / Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: Relating to the statutory provisions and appellate remedies against an Order-in-Original.
  • Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: Invocation of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge orders passed in violation of natural justice.
  • Form GST DRC-13: Issued under recovery mechanisms to recover outstanding tax dues.

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783061276_331compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.