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 noted the petitioner's submission that they did not intend to proceed with the writ petition further. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. However, the Court also acknowledged the petitioner's request to transfer the matter to the Appellate Tribunal and seek time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner could pursue their appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata, and the period of pendency of the writ petition would be excluded for computing the limitation for that appeal. The specific finding on the transferability of the writ petition itself was not explicitly detailed, but the path to appeal was facilitated.

Facts

The petitioner, Satish Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the client no longer wished to proceed with the writ petition. However, the petitioner also indicated that since the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, they intended to transfer the writ petition 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, requesting that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, given the petitioner's submission of not intending to proceed further. 2.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 should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner did not wish to proceed with the writ petition and sought its transfer to the Appellate Tribunal. They relied on the constitution and functionality of the GSTAT Kolkata to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also requested exclusion of the pendency period of the writ petition for limitation purposes. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the State.