National Carriers Corporation Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner State Tax, Barrackpore Zone, Bureau Of Investigation (South Bengal) And Ors

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had tendered a letter of withdrawal, indicating their client did not wish to proceed with the adjudication of the writ petition as they had already preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication. The Court acknowledged that the Appellate Tribunal is now functional and the petitioners seek to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the instant writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and granted four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court also noted the petitioner's request that the period during which the petition has been pending be excluded for computing limitation. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations. The Court did not explicitly rule on the exclusion of time for limitation but implicitly allowed the petitioner to pursue the appeal with this request.

Facts

The petitioner, National Carriers Corporation Private Limited, filed a writ petition (W.P.A. 19262 of 2022) before the High Court at Calcutta against the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Barrackpore Zone & Ors. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication. The petitioner stated that the Appellate Tribunal is now functional and sought to pursue the statutory remedy. The petitioner requested the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, with a request to exclude the period during which the petition was pending for computing limitation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be entertained given that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication and the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, turning on the principles of alternative remedy. 2. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata, as per Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, they wish to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata. They requested the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and sought four weeks to file the appeal. Crucially, they requested that the period the writ petition was pending be excluded for limitation purposes. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State.