Case Law Details
Ecube Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Central GST And Central Excise (Karnataka High Court)
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 14.10.2025 passed under the Finance Act, 1994. Although the petitioner acknowledged that the order was appealable under Section 107 of the Act, it invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court by relying on an earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust v. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax and connected matters.
The petitioner contended that the impugned order had been passed on the basis of information furnished by the Income Tax Department under an arrangement between the Central Board for Direct Taxes and the Central Board for Indirect Taxes. It was argued that the authority failed to consider the documents submitted by the petitioner, stating that they had not been uploaded in the prescribed format. The petitioner further submitted that in similar cases, the High Court had restored proceedings for reconsideration after granting the affected parties an opportunity to present their case.
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that, with the passage of time, jurisdictional officers had been empowered to provide opportunities to taxpayers and decide matters on their merits.
Taking note of these circumstances, the High Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of by restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for reconsideration. The Court allowed the petition in part, set aside the impugned Order-in-Original, permitted the petitioner to file all relevant documents by 22.06.2026 without awaiting a certified copy of the order, and directed the first respondent to consider the matter without rejecting the petitioner’s case on the ground of delay.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order-in-Original dated 14.10.2025 under the Finance Act, 1994 [for short, ‘the Act]. The petitioner cannot dispute that this is an order that could be appealed under Section 107 of the Act, but the petitioner has invoked this Court’s jurisdiction relying upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s. Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Tax in W.P. No.11154/2023 and connected matters dated 03.07.2024.
Ms. Lochana S. Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned Order-in- Original is based on an information furnished by the Income Tax Department acting under an agreement signed between the Central Board for Direct Taxes and the Central Board for Indirect Taxes without considering the documents filed observing that it is not uploaded in the proper format. The learned counsel argues that in very similar circumstances based on an undertaking given by the concerned from the department, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.11154/2023 and other matters [such as in W.P.No.20351/2024] restoring the proceedings for reconsideration with due opportunity.
Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, a learned Standing counsel who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard and when queried, the learned counsel submits that the undertaking as recorded in W.P.No.11154 / 2023 was to ensure that the designated officers looked into complaints of similar nature but with march of time, the jurisdictional Officers, such as the respondents in the present case, are empowered to extend an opportunity and decide on the merits of the cause that could be shown. This Court finds that the outcome in the writ petition must turn in the light of the afore circumstances with liberty to the petitioner to file once again all documents. Hence the following:
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 14.10.2025 [Annexure – A] restoring the proceedings to the first respondent for reconsideration.
[B] The petitioner shall, without further notice, file response, if any, with the first respondent by 22.06.2026 even without waiting for a certified copy of this order.
[C] The first respondent shall consider all the circumstances without non-suiting the petitioner on the ground of delay.
Author Bio
