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

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. It granted the petitioner 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 Court also restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for this four-week period. It was 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 excluding the pendency period for limitation, but the grant of time to file an appeal implicitly allows for this consideration by the Appellate Tribunal.

Facts

The petitioners, Shiva Chemicals and Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court. They submitted that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is now functional. Consequently, they sought the transfer of their 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 before the High Court be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Jorasanko and Jorabagan Charge, and others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, given its functional status? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017? 3. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the matter should be adjudicated by it. They sought time to file an appeal and requested exclusion of the pendency period for limitation. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the State-respondents regarding the transfer, time extension, or limitation period.