M/S. Lgw LTD. vs. Asst. Com. Service Tax, Div. Ii, Kol. North CGST And Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. LGW Limited, challenged an order dated March 22, 2023, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata. This order was a remand order from a Division Bench of the High Court dated December 1, 2022, in MAT No. 1663 of 2022. The High Court had directed the CESTAT to reconsider the petitioner's appeal, which was initially dismissed for being time-barred. The High Court's earlier observation noted that the department had accepted the petitioner's classification of specified services for an earlier period (April 2008 to September 2008) and this should be considered when deciding on the condonation of delay. The petitioner contended that the CESTAT's impugned order failed to address this specific direction.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated March 22, 2023, passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata, was a non-speaking order and demonstrated a total non-application of mind. The Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider the specific direction issued by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in its order dated December 1, 2022. This direction explicitly asked the Tribunal to take into account the department's acceptance of the petitioner's classification of specified services for the earlier period (April 2008 to September 2008) when deciding on the condonation of delay in filing the petitioner's appeal. The Court reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending, as the Tribunal had not properly addressed the High Court's prior observations. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CESTAT to pass a fresh order, ensuring that the observations made by the High Court in paragraph 13 of its December 1, 2022 judgment are duly considered.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CESTAT, in its order dated March 22, 2023, failed to consider the specific observation made by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in its order dated December 1, 2022, regarding the department's acceptance of the petitioner's classification of services for the period April 2008 to September 2008, when deciding on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order of the CESTAT was non-speaking and demonstrated a total non-application of mind, as it did not contain any reference to the specific direction from the High Court's previous order. They highlighted that the High Court had explicitly asked the Tribunal to consider the department's acceptance of their classification for an earlier period while deciding on the delay. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the CGST authority or the Union of India regarding the petitioner's contentions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2023. p.b. Sl. No.28-30. WPA 12130 of 2023 With WPA 13253 of 2023 with WPA 13689 of 2023 M/s. LGW Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax Division-II, (Presently designated as the Assistant Commissioner, Bidhannagar Division, Kolkata North CGST & CX Commissionerate) & Ors. Mr. Somnath Ganguli, Mr. Sukalpa Seal, Mr. Bhaskar Sengupta, Ms. Priyamvaqda Singh. ……..for the petitioner. Mr. U. S. Bhattacharya, Mr. Tapan Bhanja. ……..for the CGST authority. Mr. K. P. Chatterjee. ……..for the UOI. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22nd March, 2023 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata on the order of remand made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 1st December, 2022 in MAT No.1663 of 2022 by directing the learned Tribunal to consider afresh the appeal in question filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on the ground of limitation, by taking note of the observation of the Hon’ble
2 Division Bench more particularly about the fact that the department for the earlier period i.e. from April,
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.