IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 3049 OF 2026 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. SHANTAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MITRA SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, NO.7, PRATHAM NILAYA, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR B.K. LAYOUT, KODIPALYA, KENGERI, BENGALURU - 560 060.

SERVICE TAX REG NO.DSIPS0060RSD001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, Digitally WEST DIVISION 7, signed by GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYA P BMTC BUILDING, BUS STAND COMPLEX, Location:

HIGH FIRST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI, COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 070.

KARNATAKA

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, WEST DIVISION 7, GST WEST COMMISSIONERATE, BMTC BUILDING, BUS STAND COMPLEX, FIRST FLOOR, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU - 560 070.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE ANNEXURE A i.e., SHOW CAUSE NOTICE F.NO.GEXCOM/AE/VRFN/TPD/1100/2020-CGST-BWEST-DWD7 HAVING DIN 20201257YU000000F5FC DATED 28.12.2020 AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the correctness of the Order-in-Original, whereby after adjudication demand of service tax has been raised. The petitioner submits that the order of adjudication is based on inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is submitted that the authority while raising the demand for service tax has relied on the declaration made in the income tax returns and while noticing that the service tax returns is not filed, has adjudicated the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to bona-fide reasons, petitioner did not respond to the show-cause notice and relies on the medical records at Annexure-E. It is further contended that the services rendered by the petitioner are supply of manpower and as regards such services, the tax is to be paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism by the person who avails services. Reliance is placed on the notification dated 20.06.2012 vide Notification No.30/2012-Service tax.

3. While drawing attention to the table at Item No.

8, it is pointed out that the obligation to pay service tax is only on the person who receives such manpower supply and there would be no liability on the service provider. Reliance is also placed on the directions passed in W.P.No.11154/2023.

4. A perusal of the order of adjudication would indicate that the authority in the absence of any reply and noticing that the petitioner had not filed service tax return has proceeded to adjudicate the matter. Perused the order dated 30.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.11154/2023.

5. This Court while disposing of the said petitions by remanding it to the stage of reply to the show cause notice had made certain observations to be kept in mind by the concerned officials. The observations made from -

para 10 onwards reads as follows:-

10. The officers while disposing off the petitions to keep in mind the following:

1) Whether petitioners do not qualify under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994 ?

2) Whether services are covered under negative list ?

3) Whether services are covered under the exemption list under the Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 28.06.2012 or under any other applicable Notifications?

4) Whether the person is liable to remit service tax in terms of Rule 2 (1) (d)

read with applicable notification?

5) Whether claims are barred by limitation in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court?

11. It is also clarified that disposal of present petitions must not be construed as having adjudicated any of the contentions including jurisdiction. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open.

12. Needless to state, upon conclusion of proceedings, if any of the petitioners are still aggrieved, legal remed