Basanta Kumar Shaw vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Revenue And Ors
Held
The Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn, noting that the appellate tribunal has been constituted and is functional. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's original recourse to the High Court via a writ petition was necessitated by the non-existence of the appellate tribunal at the time of filing. With the tribunal now operational, the petitioner's stated intention to pursue their case there is a valid reason for withdrawal. The Court granted the petitioner liberty to file their appeal before the appellate tribunal within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Court acceded to the petitioner's request for withdrawal and directed them to the appropriate forum.
Facts
The petitioner, Basanta Kumar Shaw, Proprietor of M/s NMD Engineering Works, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. At the time of filing, the appellate tribunal had not yet been constituted. The petitioner now wishes to pursue the matter before the constituted appellate tribunal and therefore seeks to withdraw the present writ petition. The respondents are represented by Ms. Manasi Mukherjee and Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn given the constitution and functionality of the appellate tribunal, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal before the appellate tribunal, as prayed for by the petitioner. The petitioner argues that since the appellate tribunal is now functional, they wish to proceed before it and therefore seek withdrawal of the writ petition. The petitioner relies on the fact that the tribunal was not operational when the writ was filed. The respondent, represented by Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, does not appear to have raised any specific arguments against the withdrawal, but rather acknowledges the submission and the constitution of the tribunal.
Sections Cited
Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026 Ct. 3 Item No. AD 5 Saswata
WPA 28825 of 2023
Basanta Kumar Shaw, Proprietor of M/s NMD Engineering Works Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Commercial Taxes & State Tax, Tamluk Charge & Ors. Mr. Ankit Kanodia Ms. Megha Agarwal Ms. Tulika Roy Mr. Piyush Khaitan Mr. S. Ojha …For the petitioner Ms. Manasi Mukherjee Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee …For the respondent no. 1
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that challenging the orders passed under Section 107 of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 though the instant writ petition has been filed, at the relevant point of time the appellate tribunal was yet to be constituted. She submits that since the appellate tribunal has been constituted and has become functional, the petitioner is now interested to proceed with the matter before the tribunal. Accordingly, she prays for withdrawal of the writ petition.
Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears for the respondent no. 1. 3. Having regard to the submission made in Court and noting that the appellate tribunal has already been constituted, I am of the view that the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn.
The peti
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.