Aps Logistics vs the Joint Commissioner of Central Tax,

Aps Logistics vs The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax,

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Feb 03, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1583468

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1583468
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Decided On: Feb 03, 2026
Case Number: WP/39604/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aps Logistics

Respondent

The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax,

Excerpt

.....the period from october, 2015 to march, 2017. it is stated that the authorities had construed the income as declared in the returns as amount received from services and accordingly has levied service tax.3. it is the case of the petitioner that the order-in-original has chiefly relied on the inputs from the income tax returns.4. it is submitted that the co-ordinate bench inw.p.no.11154/2023 by order dated 03.07.2024 had passed certain observations and several orders are passed, whereby the adjudication under the service tax solely based on inputs from income tax returns have been set aside and the matter is remitted for further consideration. the observations made in para 9 and 10 reads as hereunder:9. needless to state, a bare perusal of all thepetitions reveals that the petitioners have raised various contentions which are required to be referred back for consideration by the appropriate authorities so that officers concerned may take note of the same while disposing off the petitions at the stage of post show-cause notice. -4-10. the officers while disposing off the petitions tokeep 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 ?5. it is also not in dispute that the order-in-appeal is rejected on the sole ground that statutory deposit has not been deposited.6. taking note of the observations made inw.p.no.11154/2023 dated 03.07.2024, the order-in-original at annexure-a is set aside despite the order by the appellate authority while noticing the order of dismissal by the appellate authority.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 39604 OF 2025 (T-RES) BETWEEN: APS LOGISTICS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER MR. MOHD SHAKEEL AHEMED SON OF LATE MOHD. ASLAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT 408B, 4TH FLOOR ENDECO S ALLADIN COLONY OPPOSITE VOLTAS COMPANY CZECH COLONY, SANATHNAGAR HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 018 EMAIL: [email protected] MOB : +91 89714 70774 REGISTERED UNDER PARTNERSHIP ACT. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by (BY SRI. PRADYUMNA HEJIB., ADVOCATE) VIJAYA P Location: AND: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GST EAST COMMISSIONERATE 5TH FLOOR, TTMC-BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR BENGALURU 560 071.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX (APPEALS) 4TH FLOOR, TMC-BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD DOMLUR, BENGALURU. -2-
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX ARREARS RECOVERY CELL GST EAST COMMISSIONERATE 4TH FLOOR, TMC-BMTC BUILDING OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JEEVAN J NEERALGI., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL SL. NO. 68/JC/B-EAST/2021 DATED 01.09.2021, PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE-A1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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 validity of the order-in-original at Annexure-A dated 01.09.2021. The petitioner has also challenged the order-in-appeal at Annexure-B.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent

authority has taken note of the inputs received from the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Government of India and more particularly has taken note of the gross income as made out in -3- the income tax returns relating to the income for the period from October, 2015 to March, 2017. It is stated that the authorities had construed the income as declared in the returns as amount received from services and accordingly has levied service tax.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the order-in-original has chiefly relied on the inputs from the Income Tax returns.

4. It is submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench in

W.P.No.11154/2023 by order dated 03.07.2024 had passed certain observations and several orders are passed, whereby the adjudication under the service tax solely based on inputs from income tax returns have been set aside and the matter is remitted for further consideration. The observations made in para 9 and 10 reads as hereunder:

9. Needless to state, a bare perusal of all the

petitions reveals that the petitioners have raised various contentions which are required to be referred back for consideration by the appropriate authorities so that officers concerned may take note of the same while disposing off the petitions at the stage of post show-cause notice. -4-

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 ?

5. It is also not in dispute that the order-in-appeal is rejected on the sole ground that statutory deposit has not been deposited.

6. Taking note of the observations made in

W.P.No.11154/2023 dated 03.07.2024, the order-in-original at Annexure-A is set aside despite the order by the Appellate Authority while noticing the order of dismissal by the Appellate Authority is not on merits but due to non-payment of statutory deposit. The matter is remitted to the stage of reply to the -5- show-cause notice. The authorities to take note of the observations made in W.P.No.11154/2023 and connected petitions as extracted supra, in specific to the observations made at para 10 of the order. All contentions are kept open.

7. Needless to state, the petitioner is to make out reply to the fresh show-cause notice. Petitioner to appear before respondent no.1 without waiting for notice on 25.02.2026. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE NP

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2026 Same Parties Aps Logistics vs The Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Same Judge S Sunil Dutt Yadav