Shiva Chemicals And Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax Jorasanko And Jorabagan Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court observed that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioners be granted four weeks' time from the date of the order to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners for this four-week period. The Court clarified that the interim protection granted would cease to operate and stand vacated automatically if an appeal was not filed within the stipulated four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations. The Court did not explicitly address the issue of exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for limitation purposes, but the grant of four weeks to file an appeal implicitly allows them to do so.

Facts

The petitioners, Shiva Chemicals and Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Jorasanko and Jorabagan Charge. The petitioners submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. They sought a transfer of the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal and requested four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. They also requested that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The respondents were restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners for four weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) given its functional status, and if so, what is the appropriate procedure and timeline for preferring an appeal? (Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it. They requested four weeks to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and sought exclusion of the period the writ petition was pending for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for their appeal. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State-respondents regarding the transfer or the limitation period.