[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
South Commissionerate vs M/S. Emta Coal Limited on 19 February, 2026
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
OD 15
ORDER SHEET
CEXA/25/2025
IA NO:GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CX, KOLKATA
SOUTH COMMISSIONERATE
VS
M/S. EMTA COAL LIMITED
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
AND
The Hon'ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Date: 19th February, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv.
...for the appellant
Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Adv.
...for the respondent
The Court: We have heard learned advocates on either side.
There is a delay of 163 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the
explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay
is condoned. The application being GA 1 of 2025 is allowed.
The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law for
consideration.
"a) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law and fact, arrived at a
perverse finding, bereft of reasoning and in violation of natural
justice in setting aside the entire demand confirmed against the
respondent solely on the ground of limitation when there is sufficient
ground for invoking the extended period of limitation and logically
explained in Paragraph 4.6 of the adjudication order, and further
erred in fact and law in not considering the factual distinction in the
present adjudication order, where the earlier show cause notice was
in respect of the period of 2007-2008, which has been dropped by
the department, while the demand for the period of 2008-2009,
which was not the subject matter of the earlier show cause notice
has been adjudicated on merits both on facts and law in the present
adjudication order and also on the question of limitation?
b) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in law and fact in not giving
its reasoning regarding the revised service tax return filed by the
respondent, which is contrary to Rule 7B of the Service Tax Rules
1994, which permitted a maximum of 90 days for revision of the ST
Return, but actually, the same has been done by the respondent
after a period of 2 years?
c) Whether the purported deduction of the amount collected as pure
agent as shown in ST-3 is permissible unless the respondent fulfills
the conditions laid down under Rule 5(2) of the Service Tax
(determination of Valuation out Rules), 2006 as amended?"
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.
Since the respondent is represented, service of notice of appeal stands
dispensed with.
Let this matter again appear in the monthly list of June, 2026.
IA No.GA/2/2025 is disposed of.
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)
(UDAY KUMAR, J.)
B.Pal
