M/S TENACITY LOGISTICS vs DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55820
WP No. 30061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010658932026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 30061 OF 2026 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S TENACITY LOGISTICS
(REPRESENTED BY KIRUBAKARAN G., PARTNER)
NO.35, 3RD MAIN, 4TH STREET AGRA,
HORAMAVU, BLOCK-1,
PRAKRUTHI TOWNSHIP
BENGALURU - 560 043
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. L S KARTHIKEYAN., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
CENTRAL TAX
DIVISION -4, BANGALORE EAST
COMMISSIONERATE 3RD FLOOR,
TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
DOMMALURU
BENGALURU - 560 071
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55820
WP No. 30061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010658932026
2.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX
TAX RECOVERY CELL, BANGALORE EAST
COMMISSIONERATE 3RD FLOOR,
TTMC, BMTC BUS STAND OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
DOMMALURU
BENGALURU - 560 071
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ANNEXURE - A ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL
NO.34/2023- 24/AC/ED-4 DATED 13.07.2023
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT; ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR
DIRECTION / ORDER TO THE SECOND
RESPONDENT NOT TO INITIATE ANY RECOVERY
ACTION AS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE B
LETTER DATED 27.02.2026.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55820
WP No. 30061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010658932026
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the
Adjudication Order dated 13.07.2023 [ Annexure – A ]
under the Finance Act, 1994 [for short, ‘ the Act of
1994’ ] and for direction to the second respondent not
to initiate recovery proceedings as proposed in the
Communication dated 27.02.2026 [ Annexure – B ].
2. The question presented for consideration
before this Court is, should this Court interfere to
restore the proceedings with opportunity to the
petitioner to file additional response to the Show
Cause Notice in view of the decision 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.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55820
WP No. 30061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010658932026
3. Mr. L. S. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, when
served with the Show Cause Notice, has filed a reply
specifically stating that the petitioner, as a Freight
Forwarder, would not be liable to pay service tax on
transport charges when the place of supply is outside
India, that the petitioner has relied upon the
Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and
the provisions of Section 66D of the Act and Rule 10
of the Place of Provision of Services Rules 2012 [for
short, ‘ the 2012 Rules’ ], but the first respondent,
without considering these aspects, has confirmed the
proposition in the Show Cause Notice relying upon
the Notification in 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
4. Mr. L. S. Karthikeyan submits that even if
this Notification is to be applied, the demand at the
rate now mentioned in the Adjudication Order cannot
be justified. Crucially, the learned counsel submits
that the proceedings have been initiated based on the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55820
WP No. 30061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010658932026
information received from the Central Board of Direct
Taxes [ CBDT ]. Mr. Aravind V. Chavan, a learned
Standing counsel who accepts notice for the
respondents, is heard.
5. The first respondent ought to have
examined the place of business and then ascertained
whether the petitioner was justified in placing
reliance upon Section 66D of the Act of 1994/Rule 10
of the 2012 Rules and the Notification No.25/2012-
ST dated 20.06.2012 but has not done so. This
persuades this Court to hold in favour of the
petitioner apart from the fact that the proceedings are
initiated only based upon the information received
from the CBDT.
6. This Court is also persuaded to observe
that if the first respondent required some documents
to ascertain the place of supply, it should have called
upon the petitioner to furnish the same and then
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55820
WP No. 30061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010658932026
completed the adjudication rather than close the
adjudication proceedings on the ground that no
document is produced. In the circumstances, the
following.
ORDER
[A] The petition is allowed-in-part.
[B] The Adjudication Order dated
13.07.2023 [ Annexure – A ] is quashed
restoring the proceedings to the first
respondent.
[C] The petitioner, without further notice,
shall appear with the first respondent
on 16.11.2026 and file additional
response and documents to
demonstrate that the place of supplies
is outside India calling upon the first
respondent to consider these
documents and the response in the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55820
WP No. 30061 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010658932026
light of Section 66D of the Act of
1994/Rule 10 of 2012 Rules and the
Notification No.25/2012-ST dated
20.06.2012.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
RB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3