Calcutta High Court
The Statesman Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 4 April, 2025
Author: T.S Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
OD - 21
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [CENTRAL EXCISE]
ORIGINAL SIDE
CEXA/1/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
THE STATESMAN LIMITED
VS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX-I
COMMISIONERATE KOLKATA
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Date : 4th April, 2025.
Mr. V. K. Shroff, Adv.
Ms. Priya Sarah Paul, Adv.
Mr. Deb Kr. AGarwal, Adv. ...for appellant.
Mr. Kaushik Dey, Adv.
Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. ...for respondent.
The Court :- We have heard learned counsel on either side.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law.
"i. Whether in the absence of any evidence having been brought forth by the
department so as to attribute a positive act to the Appellant with intent to
evade service tax, the demand could not have been confirmed by invoking
the larger period of limitation?
ii. Whether the judgment of the Learned Tribunal is contrary to the binding
precedent of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court1 in the case of Commissioner
of Service Tax-1. Kolkata Versus Surya Vistacom Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022
(66) G.S.T.L. 290 (Cal.) where in it was held that if the details have been
culled out by the adjudicating authority from the available records and
there is no new or fresh tangible materials available in the hands of the
adjudicating authority to make out a case of willful misstatement or willful
suppression than the extended period of limitation could not have been
invoked?
iii. Whether the Learned Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, should
have itself examined the evidence and rendered a finding instead of
remanding the matter, as all the relevant materials were already before
the Tribunal?
iv. Whether demand confirmed on the basis of a show cause notice which is
based only upon scrutiny and verification of Balance Sheet and Profit &
Loss Account without making a sincere attempt to analyze the true nature
of the services rendered by the appellant is liable to be quashed and set
aside?
v. Whether taxability under the category of "Renting of Immovable Property"
arises only when the immovable property is used in the course of, or for the
furtherance of, business or commerce?
vi. Whether charging provision should be interpreted strictly and in case of
ambiguity in a charging provisions, the benefit must necessarily
subject/assessee?
The appellant shall file requisite number of informal paper books
prepared out of Court including therein all relevant materials used
before the learned Court below within ten weeks from date and serve
copies thereof upon the learned advocate for the respondent.
Settlement of index and all other formalities are dispensed with.
Service of notice of appeal is waived.
Let the matter appear twelve weeks hence.
Prayer for stay will be considered after the learned advocate for the
respondent/department obtains appropriate instruction. Liberty to move the
application as and when the demand is raised.
.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
Pkd./S.Das
AR[CR]
