Commissioner Of Service Tax Service Tax Ii Commissionerate vs. Ms Riya Travel And Tours INDIA PVT LTD
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Commissioner of Service Tax Service Tax II Commissionerate, is seeking admission of an appeal against a judgment passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The respondent, M/s Riya Travel and Tours India Pvt Ltd, had appealed an adjudication order dated May 30, 2018, passed by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence. The CESTAT passed its judgment on September 25, 2024. The Department filed the present appeal before the High Court on February 23, 2026. The High Court noted that it does not have the determination to adjudicate an order passed by the CESTAT.
Held
The Court held that it does not have the determination to adjudicate an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The reasoning appears to be based on a lack of specific jurisdiction or statutory power for the High Court to entertain such appeals directly. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of determination. However, the Court granted the Service Tax Commissionerate leave to prefer an appeal before the appropriate court, if they were so advised, indicating that the dismissal was on procedural grounds before this specific bench rather than a final determination on the merits of the underlying GST dispute. No specific issue regarding the GST provisions or the adjudication order itself was decided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The appellant, the Department, sought admission of their appeal against the CESTAT's judgment. The respondent, the assessee, did not present arguments regarding the High Court's jurisdiction but rather on the merits of the case. The Court's primary concern was its own determination power over a CESTAT order. The judgment does not explicitly state the arguments made by the respondent regarding the merits of the case, but implies they were present and heard.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
OD – 15 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Juri iction [Central Excise] ORIGINAL SIDE
CEXA/8/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 BEFORE : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN Date : 25th June, 2026 Appearance : Mr.K.K. Maiti, Adv. …for appellant.
Mr. Deepro Sen, Adv. Mr. Shovit Betal, Adv. …for respondent.
The Court : Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant prays for admission of an appeal passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee submits that the Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, has passed an adjudication order on 30th May, 2018 against which the respondent/assessee has preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench. The learned Tribunal was pleased to pass a judgment on 25th September, 2024 from which the Department has preferred an appeal before this Court on 23rd February, 2026. 2
Heard learned counsels for the parties. As this Court does not have determination to adjudicate an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, the matter is dismissed for want of determination. However, the Service Tax Commissionerate is granted leave to prefer appeal before the appropriate court, if so advised.
The appeal and the connected applications are dismissed.
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)
(PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.)
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.