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 he does not intend to proceed with the writ petition further. Consequently, the writ petition along with any accompanying application was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also took on record the written instruction given by the petitioner to his learned advocate. Addressing the petitioner's request for transfer to the Appellate Tribunal, the Court observed that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. The Court granted the petitioner four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. The Court further directed that the period during which the writ petition was pending be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing the appeal. With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, Satish Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta 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 stated 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 writ 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 Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn in light of the petitioner's submission that he does not intend to proceed further. 2.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 should be excluded for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Contentions: Petitioner: Submitted that he does not intend to proceed with the writ petition. Argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is functional, the writ petition should be transferred to it. Sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal before the GSTAT Kolkata and requested exclusion of the pending period for limitation computation. Revenue/State: No arguments recorded for the State.