IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA W.P.No.4500/2018 (T – RES) BETWEEN :
K.RANGANATHA ADIGA S/O LATE SEETHARAMA ADIGA AGED 57 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/s LION SECURITY SERVICES 1ST FLOOR, B K MARIYAPPA CHARITIES 1ST CROSS, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI V.R.BALASUBRAMANI, ADV.) AND :
1 . THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE WEST COMMISSIONERATE TTMC-BMTC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, DOMLUR OLD AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560071 2 . THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX BANGALORE WEST COMMISSIONERATE TTMC-BMTC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, DOMLUR OLD AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560071 3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF CENTRAL TAX BANGALORE WEST COMMISSIONERATE TTMC-BMTC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, DOMLUR OLD AIRPORT ROAD BANGALORE-560071 4 . SUBCO BANK RAJATHA BHAVANA NO.106, R.V.ROAD VISHVESHWARAPURAM BANGALORE-560004 5. SRI KRISHNA SEVASHRAMA HOSPITAL NO.523, 10TH MAIN, 45TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041 REP. BY THE MANAGER.
6 . M/s HOTEL INDUSTRIALISTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SAHAKARA SOURABHA NO.234, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, CHAMARAJAPET BANGALORE-560018 REP. BY THE MANAGER.
7 . M/s KOTESHEARA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMITA NO.112, 1ST FLOOR, R V ROAD V.V. PURAM, BANGALORE-560004 REP. BY THE MANAGER.
8 . M/s G.R.COMMERCIALS NO.142/143, G R PLAZA DVG ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE-560004 REP. BY THE MANAGER.
9 . M/s BALAN AGRO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMTIED NO.1, SRI DURGA NILAYA LAKSHMIPURA MAIN ROAD SINGAPURA VILLAGE VIDYARANYAPURAM BANGALORE-560097 REP.BY THE MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.M.SHIVAYOGISWAMY, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI K.S.VENKATARAMANA, ADV. FOR R-5;
SRI VIJAYKUMAR G. BAGOJI, ADV. FOR R-8; R-4, R-6 & R-9 ARE SERVED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 01.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-E ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, BENGALURU WEST COMMISSIONERATE, BANGALORE (RESPONDENT No.3).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the notice of recovery dated 01.01.2018 issued by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Tax, Bangalore-respondent No.3, at Annexure-E to the writ petition whereby the notice is issued to initiate proceedings to recover a sum of Rs.4,39,71,946/- towards the petitioner’s service tax liability with interest and penalty. In the earlier round of litigation, in W.P.No.1774/18 (D.D.30.1.2018), the Cognate Bench of this Court has considered the garnishee order/notice issued under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 addressed to the 7th respondent herein, wherein the respondent bank has informed the petitioner vide communication dated 30.12.2017 freezing the petitioner’s Current Account No.00106000022. It is beneficial to quote the relevant paragraphs of the said order for ready reference.
“11. Admittedly in the present case, the Service Tax Liability determined against the petitioner assessee under the Garnishee orders Annexure A and Annexure B has not been set aside or even stayed by any higher Authority or Court or the Tribunal. Therefore, such Date of Order 30-01-2018 W.P.No.1774/2018 K. Ranganatha Adiga Vs. The Commissioner of Central Tax & Ors. liability of the petitioner assessee to pay such Service Tax to the Central Government does not have any bar or restriction upon the amount to be recovered by the Assessing Authority.
12. The procedure envisaged under Section 73 is applicable to the provisional assessment to prevent the fraudulent transfer of the property by the defaulting assessee and the said provisions operate in a different field and is intended to secure the recovery due from the defaulting assessee for serving the cause of the Revenue and that Section 73 or the Rules made there under are not applicable under Section 87 of the Act under which the impugned Garnishee order/Notice has been issued by the Respondent Assessing Authority to the Bank of the present petitioner.
13. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned Garnishee proceedings under Section 87 of the Act for recovery of the Service Tax dues from the petitioner.
14. There is no merit in the present writ petition. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.”
Thus, the said writ petition has been dismissed for the reasons recorded therein as aforesaid. Strangely, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the notice for recovery relating to the very same demand of Rs.4,39,71,946/- in the present petition. In view of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.1774/2018, the challenge made to the present impugned notice does not survive for consideration and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Dvr: