Case Law Details
Novel Security Services Vs Additional Director (Karnataka High Court)
In the present case, it is seen that every attempt made by the respondent to secure information/document from the appeal were stonewalled by the appellant. Though the show cause notice issued by the respondent which was impugned before the learned Single Judge was not preventive in nature but yet an offence report was registered against the appellant. If the appellant desired to seek the benefit of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, he is expected to comply with the summons issued by the respondent seeking explanation/documents that were summoned by the respondent. The benefit of the Master Circular cannot be a one-way traffic and the appellant cannot milk the Master Circular to his advantage.
In that view of the matter, the appellant was not entitled to pre-show cause notice as contemplated under Master Circular dated 10.03.2017. Nonetheless, learned Single Judge directed the respondent to keep the impugned show cause notice in abeyance and grant an opportunity to the appellant being heard in terms of the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017 and also reserved liberty to the respondent to revive the show cause notice if the appellant was not able to establish that he had deposited the tax recovered from his service recipients. Since the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is thoroughly balanced, there is no need to interfere with the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is filed assailing the correctness of the order dated 26.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.8882/2021.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
