Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Ramky Speciality Chemicals and Equipment, challenged an Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2022/29.12.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner sought quashing of the adjudication order and remand of the matter for fresh consideration after being afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The impugned Order-in-Original was stated to have been passed ex parte, allegedly without due service of notice upon the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the proceedings were based on information furnished by the Income Tax Department under an agreement between the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes, but the petitioner was not granted due opportunity to respond before the tax liability was determined.

The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy, relying upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. The writ petition was filed almost three years after the impugned order; however, the petitioner maintained that no notice had been duly served and no effective opportunity had been extended.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an ex parte Order-in-Original under the Finance Act, 1994 could be sustained where the assessee alleged absence of due service of notice and denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
  2. Whether the High Court could exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy referred to in the order under Section 107 of the Act.
  3. Whether proceedings founded upon information shared by the Income Tax Department could result in tax liability without first granting the assessee a proper opportunity to explain the transactions and invoke the relevant statutory provisions.
  4. Whether a delay of almost three years in approaching the High Court should defeat the petitioner’s challenge when the petitioner specifically asserted non-service of notice and absence of opportunity.
  5. Whether the principle and procedural approach adopted in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax warranted restoration of the proceedings for reconsideration with due opportunity.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that the impugned Order-in-Original was an ex parte adjudication order passed without due service of notice and without granting a proper opportunity to place its case before the adjudicating authority.

It was argued that the demand was based on information furnished by the Income Tax Department pursuant to an information-sharing arrangement between the direct tax and indirect tax authorities. However, such information could not, according to the petitioner, justify fastening tax liability without granting an effective opportunity to explain the underlying transactions and applicable legal provisions.

The petitioner relied upon the Karnataka High Court’s decision in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No. 11154/2023 and connected matters dated 03.07.2024. It was submitted that in materially similar circumstances, proceedings had been restored for reconsideration with due opportunity. Reference was also made before the Court to other matters, including W.P. No. 20351/2024, where similar relief had been granted.

The petitioner further proposed to rely upon statutory provisions to demonstrate that the subject transaction did not result in the asserted consequence of liability to pay the taxes in question. Therefore, all relevant facts and legal contentions were required to be examined before liability could lawfully be fastened upon it.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submitted that the undertaking recorded in W.P. No. 11154/2023 was intended to ensure that designated officers examined complaints of a similar nature.

The respondent’s counsel further submitted that, with the passage of time, the jurisdictional officer, including the respondent in the present matter, was empowered to grant an opportunity to the petitioner and decide the matter on the merits of the cause shown.

Thus, the respondent’s position, as recorded by the Court, recognised the jurisdictional officer’s capacity to reconsider the matter after extending an opportunity and thereafter adjudicate the controversy on merits.

Court Order / Findings

The Karnataka High Court held that the outcome of the writ petition had to be determined in light of the specific circumstances placed before it, notwithstanding that the writ petition had been filed almost three years after the impugned order.

The Court gave significance to the petitioner’s assertion that:

  • notice had not been served upon it;
  • no opportunity had otherwise been extended;
  • the petitioner intended to rely upon statutory provisions to contend that the subject transaction did not attract the alleged tax consequence.

The Court found that all such circumstances were required to be considered before liability could be fastened upon the petitioner.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition in part, quashed the Order-in-Original dated 28.12.2022/29.12.2022, and restored the proceedings to the respondent for reconsideration.

The petitioner was directed to file its response, if any, with the respondent by 22.06.2026, without waiting for further notice or even for a certified copy of the High Court’s order.

The respondent was directed to consider all relevant circumstances and not non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay.

Important Clarification

This decision is significant because the High Court did not finally determine the substantive service tax liability on merits. The Court did not hold that the underlying transaction was necessarily exempt or that no tax was payable. Instead, it quashed the impugned ex parte Order-in-Original and restored the proceedings so that the petitioner’s factual and statutory contentions could be properly examined before liability was imposed.

The ruling also clarifies that the nearly three-year delay did not, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, justify shutting out the petitioner where there was a specific assertion of non-service of notice, absence of opportunity, and a proposed statutory defence against the alleged tax consequence.

Further, the Court expressly directed the respondent to reconsider the matter without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay. Therefore, the decision should be understood as a procedural and natural-justice intervention resulting in fresh adjudication, rather than a final adjudication extinguishing the tax demand on substantive merits.

Sections

  • Finance Act, 1994 — statutory framework under which the impugned Order-in-Original was passed.
  • Section 107 of the Act — referred to in the judgment in the context of the availability of an appellate remedy against the impugned order.
  • Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — constitutional provisions invoked for the High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction.
  • Principles of Natural Justice — particularly due service of notice, reasonable opportunity of hearing, and fair adjudication before fastening tax liability.
  • CBDT–Indirect Tax Department Information Sharing Context — relevant factual background concerning the information forming the basis of the proceedings.

Link to download the order -https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783065591_408.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.