M/S. Radha Mohanb Purshottam Das Agarwal And Anr vs. The Assistant Commissiober Of State Tax, Jorasanko And Jorabagan Charge, Govt. Of W B And Ors

Held

The Court noted that the petitioners had tendered a letter of withdrawal indicating their intention not to proceed with the adjudication of the writ petition as they had already preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication. The petitioners stated that since the Appellate Tribunal has been constituted and is functional, they wish to pursue their statutory remedy. They requested the writ petition be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, with the period of pendency of the writ petition being excluded for computing the limitation. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations, implicitly allowing the petitioners to pursue their appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and to seek exclusion of the pending period for limitation.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Radha Mohan Purshottam Das Agarwal & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court at Calcutta challenging an order of adjudication passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Jorasanko and Jorabagan charge. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners preferred an appeal against the said adjudication order. They submitted that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, they wish to pursue the statutory remedy available before it. The petitioners sought to have the writ petition transferred to the Appellate Tribunal and requested four weeks' time to prefer an appeal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017, with a prayer to exclude the period during which the writ petition was pending for computing the limitation period.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal, given its current functionality. 2. Whether the period during which the writ petition was pending before the High Court should be excluded for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017/WBGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that since the Appellate Tribunal is now functional, they wish to pursue the appropriate statutory remedy. They requested the transfer of the writ petition to the Appellate Tribunal and sought four weeks' time to prefer an appeal. Crucially, they requested that the period the writ petition was pending before the High Court be excluded for calculating the limitation period for their appeal. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or the State authorities.