An ex-parte adjudication order under the Finance Act, 1994, based solely on data received from the CBDT, must be set aside to ensure principles of natural justice, and the matter should be remitted to a designated authority for reconsideration at the show-cause notice stage.

WRIT PETITION NO. 11361 OF 2026 (T-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. ACCESS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE

COMPANIES ACT, 2013

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

SHRI S. SANDEEP REDDY

SON OF SHRI K. SATHYANARAYANA

AGED 40 YEARS,

HAVING OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR

217, RAHEJA CHAMBERS,

NO. 12, MUSEUM ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 0014

EMAIL: SRIVATSALAW@GMAIL.COM

MOB: 89714 70774

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

CENTRAL TAX, SOUTH DIVISION-8

BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE

7TH FLOOR, 'C' WING,

KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA,

BENGALURU-560 034

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX,

SOUTH DIVISION-4

7TH FLOOR, 'C' WING,

KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA

BENGALURU-560 034

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT

HEADQUARTERS RECOVERY CELL

BENGALURU SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE

C R BUILDING ANNEXE, QUEENS ROAD

BENGALURU - 560 001

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. AKASH SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT/ TO QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO. 01/2025-26/AC/SD8 (DIN 20250457YV0000228990) DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) 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

Sri. Akash Shetty, learned counsel accepts notice for respondents.

2. Petitioner has challenged the validity of the order-in-original at Annexure-A dated 21.04.2025.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that proceedings relating to service tax were initiated under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, which initiation was solely on the basis of inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is further submitted that there was no service of notice and in effect the order passed is an ex-parte order. It is submitted that the petitioner was dealing with sale of immovable properties and accordingly the question of such business coming within the ambit of service tax does not arise.

4. It is submitted that in an identical factual matrix where service tax liability was sought to be fastened pursuant to adjudication on the basis of inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, this Court in W.P. No. 11154/2023 and connected matters has set aside the order and directed reconsideration with certain observations.

5. Perused the order-in-original. The said order is an ex-parte order without the benefit of any reply by the petitioner to the show cause case. It is to be noticed that in fact on an earlier occasion, this Court in the case of same assessee had remitted the matter back for consideration by virtue of the order passed in W.P. No. 2821/2024 along with connected matters. But, it appears that even upon remand in light of non-service of notice on the petitioner, they have not participated in the proceedings.

6. It is necessary to reiterate the observations made by this Court in W.P. No. 2821/2024 and connected matters which was disposed of on 23.07.2024.

"In all these matters, the proceedings by way of show cause notice under the Finance Act for Service Tax liability have been initiated on the basis of inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on the basis of Form 26AS/income tax returns filed.

2. Taking note of the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions, the present batch of Writ Petitions are also required to be disposed of in light of the observations made therein, as the legal contentions are identical and would fall within the consideration as reflected in the order dated 03.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connecte