Ashok Kumar Mohta vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Bowbazar Charge And Ors.

Held

The Court observed that the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner be granted four weeks from the date of the order to file 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 petitioner for this four-week period. The Court also clarified that the interim protection granted would cease to operate and stand vacated 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 decide on the exclusion of the pendency period for limitation, but by granting time to file an appeal, it implicitly allowed the petitioner to pursue the appeal, which would likely involve addressing limitation before the Appellate Tribunal.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mohta, filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner's primary submission was that since the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, the writ petition should 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. The petitioner 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 State respondents were represented.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, given its functional status, for the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017? 2. 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 the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, making it the appropriate forum for appeal. They requested a four-week period to file the appeal and sought exclusion of the pendency period of the writ petition for limitation purposes. The petitioner relied on the principle that when a statutory forum becomes functional, matters pending before higher courts should be directed to that forum. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the State respondents.