Satish Kumar Agarwal, Proprietor Of The Business Namely, M/S. S.S. Commercial Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue, State Tax, Princep Street Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that he did not intend to proceed with the writ petition further and, in view of this, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court also noted the petitioner's request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal and to grant him four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Crucially, the Court observed that the period during which the writ petition was pending should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal before the GSTAT. The ratio decidendi is that a litigant should not be prejudiced by the time taken for proceedings before a court, especially when a statutory appellate forum becomes available. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with the observation regarding the transfer and limitation period.

Facts

The petitioner, Satish Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax. The petitioner subsequently informed the Court that he no longer wished to proceed with the writ petition. He indicated that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional and requested that the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, and requested that the period during which the petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission that he does not intend to proceed further. 2. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for filing an appeal 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 an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it. He sought time to file an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and requested exclusion of the pending period for limitation purposes, relying on the principle that a litigant should not suffer due to the pendency of proceedings before a court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State. However, the Court's order implies acceptance of the petitioner's request for transfer and time to file an appeal.