Allowed¶17

Bharati Sikaria v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Apr 2026FMA/9/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Service tax; Finance Act, 1994, Section 74(3) rectification of clerical mistake in CGST adjudication order; Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate; writ petition dismissed for alternative appellate remedy; FMA 9 of 2025 allowed; impugned Single Bench order dated 11.11.2024 set aside; direction to dispose of rectification application within one month; question whether mistakes are clerical errors left open; connected CAN 1 of 2024 disposed; decision dated 08.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Single Bench order dated 11th November, 2024 set aside; Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate directed to dispose of the appellant's Section 74(3) Finance Act, 1994 rectification application within one month; no order as to costs; connected pending applications disposed of.

Bharati Sikaria Vs Union of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal should be allowed and the appellant's pending application under Section 74(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 for rectification of clerical mistakes in the adjudication order directed to be disposed of, notwithstanding the Single Bench's dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of an alternative appellate remedy.

¶11

Court's answer

Where there is a statutory provision permitting any Central Excise Officer to rectify a clerical error, the appellant had rightly made the rectification application, which ought to have been disposed of as expeditiously as possible or at the first instance.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate is directed to dispose of the appellant's application under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 mandatorily and positively within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶14

Key takeaways

It is left open to the Assistant Commissioner to decide whether the mistakes pointed out by the appellant are in fact clerical errors or any mandatory order originally passed by him.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FMA allowed. The Division Bench (Rajasekhar Mantha and Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.) set aside the Single Bench order dated 11th November, 2024, by which the appellant's writ petition had been dismissed on the ground that she had an alternative remedy of approaching the Appellate Authority instead of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant had applied under Sub-Section (3) of Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 (Service Tax) for rectification of clerical mistakes in an adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate, and the application had not been considered. Holding that the application ought to have been disposed of expeditiously or at the first instance, the Court directed its mandatory disposal within one month of receipt of a copy of the order, while leaving it open to the Assistant Commissioner to decide whether the mistakes pointed out were clerical errors or a mandatory order originally passed. No order as to costs; connected pending applications disposed of.

¶1

08.04.2026 Court No.13 Item No.10 AP

¶2

FMA 9 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2024

¶3

Bharati Sikaria Vs.

¶4

Union of India and Ors.

¶5

Mr. Souvik Guha Mr. Siddhartha Dasgupta

¶6

… For the Appellant.

¶7

Mr. Kaushik Dey Ms. Sweety Jha

¶8

… For the Respondents/CGST Authority.

¶9

The appeal is directed against an order dated 11^th November, 2024 passed by a Single Bench of this Court. The grievance of the appellant is that the Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate passed an adjudication order which contains certain clerical mistakes. The appellant applied under Sub-Section (3) of Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 entitled Service Tax, for rectification of the said mistakes, which has not been considered till date.

¶10

The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition since the appellant had a remedy of approaching an Appellate Authority instead of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

This Court is of the view that when there is statutory provision permitting any Central Excise Officer to rectify any clerical error in his application, the appellant had rightly made such application which

¶12

¶13

ought to have been disposed of as expeditiously as possible or at the first instance.

¶14

Having regard to the above, this Court directs the Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate to dispose of the appellant’s application under Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 mandatorily and positively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

It is left open to the Assistant Commissioner (Systems), Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate to decide whether the mistakes pointed out by the appellant are, in fact, clerical error or any mandatory order passed originally by him.

¶16

With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order dated 11^th November, 2024 is set aside.

¶17

Accordingly, FMA 9 of 2025 is allowed and disposed of. Consequently, all connected pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶18

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶20

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

¶21

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

Bharati Sikaria v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharati Sikaria v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meher Ali Mondal Vs State of West Bengal

Smt. Arati Murmu & Ors. Vs Santi Bala Routh

The General Manager, South Eastern Railway Administration Sera Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd, Bokaro Steel Plant.

Sumanta Haldar Vs Krishna Haldar

Joydeb Chandra Khan Vs Ananda Kumar Khan and Ors.

Pranab Kumar Sungha @ Manik Kumar Singha and Anr. Vs Somnath Majumdar and Ors. in Place of Jyotsna Majumder Since Deceased