Facts of the Case

M/s Ecube Media Pvt Ltd challenged the Order-in-Original dated 14.10.2025 passed under the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner also sought to challenge the Show Cause Notice dated 12.11.2020. The Order-in-Original was stated to be appealable under Section 107 as recorded in the judgment; nevertheless, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court by relying upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench 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.

The petitioner’s grievance was that the impugned Order-in-Original was based on information furnished by the Income Tax Department pursuant to an agreement between the Central Board for Direct Taxes and the Central Board for Indirect Taxes, while the documents filed by the petitioner were not considered on the ground that they had not been uploaded in the proper format. The petitioner contended that, in materially similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench had restored proceedings for reconsideration with due opportunity.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were:

  1. Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 107, considering the petitioner’s grievance that its documents were not considered because they were not uploaded in the proper format.
  2. Whether the impugned Order-in-Original dated 14.10.2025 required reconsideration when the adjudication was allegedly based on information furnished by the Income Tax Department without considering the petitioner’s supporting documents.
  3. Whether the approach adopted in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and similar matters justified restoration of the proceedings with an opportunity to the petitioner to refile all documents.
  4. Whether the jurisdictional authority could reconsider the matter on merits and extend due opportunity to the petitioner without rejecting the petitioner’s case on the ground of delay.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was founded on information supplied by the Income Tax Department under an arrangement between the Central Board for Direct Taxes and the Central Board for Indirect Taxes. According to the petitioner, the adjudicating authority failed to consider the documents filed by it merely because those documents were not uploaded in the proper format.

The petitioner further relied upon the Co-ordinate Bench judgment 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 argued that in very similar circumstances, and based on an undertaking from the concerned departmental side, the Court had restored proceedings for reconsideration with due opportunity. Reference was also made to other matters, including W.P. No. 20351/2024.

Accordingly, the petitioner sought restoration of the proceedings so that all relevant documents could be placed before the competent authority and considered on merits.

Respondents’ Arguments

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the undertaking recorded in W.P. No. 11154/2023 was intended to ensure that designated officers examined complaints of a similar nature. However, with the passage of time, jurisdictional officers, including the respondents in the present case, were empowered to provide an opportunity and decide on the merits of the cause shown by the concerned party.

The respondents’ position, as recorded by the Court, therefore indicated that the jurisdictional officers were competent to extend an opportunity and adjudicate the matter on merits.

Court’s Findings

The Karnataka High Court found that the outcome of the writ petition had to be determined in light of the circumstances placed before it. The Court considered it appropriate to grant the petitioner liberty to file all documents once again and to restore the matter for reconsideration.

The Court’s approach ensured that the petitioner would receive an opportunity to place its material before the competent authority and that the matter would be reconsidered in the light of all relevant circumstances.

Court Order

The High Court allowed the writ petition in part and issued the following directions:

  1. The impugned Order-in-Original dated 14.10.2025 was interfered with to the extent of restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for reconsideration.
  2. The petitioner was directed, without further notice, to file its response, if any, before the first respondent by 22.06.2026, even without waiting for a certified copy of the High Court’s order.
  3. The first respondent was directed to consider all the circumstances and not to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay.

Important Clarification

The judgment does not record a final adjudication on the underlying service tax liability on merits. The High Court restored the proceedings for reconsideration, permitting the petitioner to place all documents again before the competent authority.

A particularly important procedural aspect is that the petitioner’s grievance concerned non-consideration of documents because they were allegedly not uploaded in the proper format. The Court granted liberty to file all documents once again and directed reconsideration of the matter. Further, the authority was specifically directed not to reject or non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay.

The decision should also be read carefully on the question of alternative remedy: the order records that an appeal could be filed under Section 107, yet the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction by relying upon the earlier Co-ordinate Bench decision in M/s Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax. The relief granted was therefore shaped by the particular factual and procedural circumstances recorded in the order and should not be treated as a general proposition that the statutory appellate remedy can invariably be bypassed.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Section 107 – Appellate remedy provision expressly referred to in the judgment.
Finance Act, 1994 – The impugned Order-in-Original was passed under this enactment.
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – Constitutional provisions under which the writ petition was filed.

Link to download the order -
https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783069977_433compressed.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.