Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Shri Muniswamy Gowda Muralidhar, a resident of Bengaluru, approached the Karnataka High Court challenging a show cause notice bearing F.No.GEXCOM/ADJN/ST/ADC/266/2021 (SCN No.23/2021-22) dated 21.04.2021, which he claimed was never served upon him, and the consequential Order-in-Original No.BLR-South/ADC/30/2022-23 dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru South GST Commissionerate. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus quashing both the show cause notice and the resultant adjudication order as illegal, without authority of law and ab initio void.

During the hearing, both parties agreed that the controversy was directly covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust vs Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (WP No.11154/2023 and connected matters, decided on 03.07.2024), which had dealt with a batch of similar writ petitions challenging show cause notices and Orders-in-Original passed by Central Tax authorities.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an Order-in-Original passed pursuant to a show cause notice, allegedly not served on the noticee, can be sustained.
  2. Whether the ratio laid down in Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, relegating similarly placed petitioners to the stage of the show cause notice, squarely applies to the present facts.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The show cause notice dated 21.04.2021 was never served on the petitioner.
  • The consequential Order-in-Original dated 05.09.2022 is therefore illegal, without authority of law and ab initio void.
  • The controversy is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench ruling in Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and the Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) contested the petition, but did not dispute that the issue was covered by the Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust batch decision.

Court Order / Findings

  • Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that though several contentions were urged by both sides, the controversy was directly and squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, which had directed that Orders-in-Original impugned in such writ petitions stand set aside and be relegated to the officers concerned to be reconsidered from the stage of the show cause notice.
  • The Court disposed of the present petition in terms of the aforesaid judgment, quashing the impugned Order-in-Original dated 05.09.2022.
  • The matter was remitted to the concerned respondent to the stage of post-show-cause-notice, to proceed further in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • Where the validity of a show cause notice and the resultant Order-in-Original passed by Central Tax authorities is under challenge and the matter is covered by an existing Co-ordinate Bench ruling in a batch of similar writ petitions, the High Court will apply that ratio and relegate the matter to the show cause notice stage rather than examine the individual facts afresh.
  • Such petitioners are given liberty to file their pleadings before the designated officer within a reasonable time, and any demands raised pursuant to the quashed order are also set aside.

Sections Involved

  • Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — invoked for the writ of certiorarified mandamus.
  • Central Excise/Service Tax adjudication provisions — under which the impugned show cause notice and Order-in-Original were issued, later governed by transitional CGST adjudication procedure.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the Assessee, with the Order-in-Original quashed and the matter remitted to the post-show-cause-notice stage for fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Case No.: WP No. 35288 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:51955
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar
Date of Order: 08.12.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.